Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified].

Read the Third time and passed.

TRADE

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1974.—[Mr., Peter Walker.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Fuel Stocks

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are his present plans relating to the introduction of the rationing of oil and petrol.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the present position of fuel stocks and on fuel rationing.

Mr. Leadbitter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on oil reserves and the need for rationing.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Walker): As I told the House on 5th December, our reserve position does not suggest that the Government should now take action to ration petrol. That remains the position and we shall continue to watch the situation closely.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Sunday Press was almost unanimous in its criticism that the Government are being dishonest about the facts? Is not the position very much altered by the statement from Kuwait yesterday? Does not this statement mean that there will be an effective reduction of 30 per cent. in our supplies? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Prime Minister has yet had a reply to his letter to the Arabs seeking an assurance that supplies to this country will be kept up in January, and subsequently?

Mr. Walker: As far as the comments of the Sunday Press are concerned, I note from the hon. Gentleman that whenever the Sunday Press is unanimous on a topic in future he will be in agreement


with it. Regarding Kuwait, we have received important assurances from certain oil producers. There is no reason to suppose that the latest announcement affects this assurance in any way.

Mr. Marten: In order to clear up misunderstandings, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether we are exporting from these shores any coal or refined oil products to any country whatsoever? If we are, to which countries are these exports being made?

Mr. Walker: Importing and exporting refined products is taking place involving a whole range of nations. For example, we provide most of the refining capacity for Southern Ireland. We import a whole range of products from European countries and export a whole range of products to those countries. These exports involve tiny quantities of coal. If these exports, which involve only a minor figure, did not take place it would mean that contracts entered into by the National Coal Board would be broken. I have control over exports of oil, and the oil companies make weekly declarations of their intentions.

Mr. Leadbitter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep anxiety among hon. Members on both sides of the House and the deep frustration in the country regarding the haphazard way in which distribution of fuel is being dealt with? Is he further aware that in some areas this type of distribution of fuel is causing frustration of a critical kind? Will he not at least say that the facts should be brought to the House by way of a statement this week, and will he consult the Leader of the House about the order of this week's business and express a personal view that a debate this evening on the landscaping of New Palace Yard—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We shall come to the debate on New Palace Yard later.

Mr. Walker: The question of business is for the Leader of the House.

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there is sufficient fuel oil to deal with the CEGB and the chemical industry? Will he give an indication of the naphtha position? Can

he estimate what will be the world price of crude oil and what price the United Kingdom will have to pay?

Mr. Walker: The situation in terms of fuel oil provides ground for most anxiety, partly due to the CEGB's decision to make oil reductions. The total position on fuel oil is worse than on almost every other product. The stock situation is such that, provided we can continue the present cuts in the CEGB, these will enable us to continue at the present level. The naphtha situation can be changed dramatically by one major import. Recently a substantial import came from the Gulf which eased the situation, but there is one aspect of naphtha which is causing me some concern, and that is its use in the gas industry.

Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not merely the Press and Members of Parliament who are critical of him? There is also evidence that the CBI and trade unions feel that he is not being candid and is not telling people the facts. All we are seeking is more information from him. Can he say, for example, what degree of control he exercises over the oil companies? Can he say something about the responsibility for controlling the price of petrol, especially as the Price Commission now appears to contradict itself daily, and as in any case the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act has given back the power of control to the Minister? Will the right hon. Gentleman also share with the House, industry and the public his assessment of the short-term and mid-term economic prospects?

Mr. Walker: No one will expect me to reply to all those questions. The last one alone is a subject for a major speech. The right hon. Gentleman is correct, however, in saying that I nave taken powers which enable me to control the price at both retail and distribution levels. The matter of price control and the manner in which it will be exercised is being examined urgently by the Government in talks with the oil companies. The Price Commission has issued a statement today making its position clear. One of its members made a broadcast in the course of which he made a mistake in saying what the powers were. As for the public feeling of uncertainty about


the position and the suggestion of a lack of candour, this is a situation which is complicated and which varies virtually from day to day. In such a situation it is understandable that people regret that there is not some easy graph or set of statistics telling the whole story.

Mr. Evelyn King: Although I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties, will he bear in mind the special position of the tourist industry, upon which places such as Dorset largely depend, as my own constituents do? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that bookings for the future are being made now, and that the economy of the country may depend on them? It is clear that the Opposition do not understand the seriousness of the situation for holiday areas. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making a special holiday allocation or any other alleviation of the position which may be thought possible?

Mr. Walker: In his speech on Friday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry made it clear that in certain conditions the whole of industry is substantially threatened by the energy situation. This is a situation in which all industries, including the tourist industry, will suffer.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the position in many areas is far more serious than he appears to appreciate? Is he aware that many farmers are suffering considerable difficulties at present? Is he aware also that working to a formula based on last year's supplies does not cover new entrants to the agriculture industry, those farmers who have moved from one area to another in the past year, or those who have expanded their activities in response to Government exhortations? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, finally, that smaller distributors who normally receive supplies from American-owned companies are running out of supplies, with serious consequences to their customers? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at these problems as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Walker: These are problems which are bound to occur when an across-the-board cut is suddenly imposed. I want to pay tribute to the civil servants in my Department who, together with certain divisions of the oil companies, have dealt with hundreds of such problems

effectively in the past few weeks. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of specific cases and will let me have details, I shall see that they are tackled straight away.

Mr. Adam Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current level of usable oil stocks in the United Kingdom; and how this compares with one week earlier.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation regarding the price, supply, consumption and stocks of oil.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the latest situation with regard to oil supplies within and on the way to the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the distribution of petrol supplies throughout the country.

Mr. Peter Walker: Deliveries of crude oil to the United Kingdom last month were much as expected before the crisis. This month the oil companies expect a shortfall of about 15 per cent. and a reduction in imports of oil products. To meet the expected situation, deliveries to users have, in general, been reduced by 10 per cent. compared with last year, and other economy measures have been introduced. Stocks overall remain reasonably satisfactory so far. Prices of petroleum products must inevitably rise in the near future, following the big increases in crude oil prices imposed by the oil producers in October.

Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more precise about the level of stocks? Is he aware that my Question referred to the extent of usable stocks as well? Will he give an answer on that point? Will he give a more precise indication of the current level of stocks?

Mr. Walker: It is difficult to give an answer about usable stocks, because the only figures that I have are of stocks held by the oil companies. The extent to which some of those stocks have declined in certain areas may mean that there are now stocks in industry as opposed to the oil companies. I can obtain no accurate figures, day by day or week by week, of stocks held by firms


and industry throughout the country. Overall, the current stock trend has been in line with the seasonal fluctuation that would be normal at this time of the year with comparable shifts in stocks from the oil companies to people's petrol tanks and to individual firms.

Mr. Palmer: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many power stations previously burning coal are now being converted to oil? Will he supply the House with the list of such stations?

Mr. Walker: shall do so, but I cannot at the present time.

Mr. Biffen: Does it presently remain the view of my right hon. Friend that supplies and consumption of stocks of fuel oil and naphtha are sufficient both immediately and in prospect to sustain the Government's growth target of 3½ per cent., or has he joined the growing army of economic realists, among whom I include myself, who believe otherwise?

Mr. Walker: I know that my hon. Friend has always included himself in that category. Growth depends on future events that even my hon. Friend, with the realism that he brings to the subject, cannot accurately predict.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation must inevitably get worse? If so, is it not criminally incompetent of the Government not to use the powers that the Minister admits he now has to control the prices of all petroleum products? Has not the time now arrived for him to introduce some rationing to avoid what is becoming a racket throughout the distributive trade?

Mr. Walker: As I said last week, the introduction of rationing does not prevent rackets. Previous rationing schemes illustrate that there are plenty of rackets.
Regarding the control of prices, I obtained these powers only last Friday and Saturday. At the moment we do not know the full effect of current price increases and the current price-effectiveness of crude oil. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall use my powers to ensure that no profiteering is made out of the present situation.

Mr. Chapman: If it is true that, generally speaking, there are adequate supplies of petrol in the country and that the problem is aggravated by panic-stricken motorists topping up at every opportunity, would not the answer be that, instead of most garages refusing to give more than £1 worth of petrol, my right hon. Friend should insist that they give not less than £2 worth, or five gallons, with the obvious exception of small tank capacity vehicles?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that we could make that kind of approach by Government regulation and impose it on everybody in the country. Some garages have endeavoured to use that method to frighten off people who were just topping up. The position throughout the country, checked at lunchtime today, is very different and much improved compared with a week ago.

Mr. Sheldon: Is it not clear, in view of the price of oil to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that the price of coal is extraordinarily competitive and that the Government are, for the first time within the last 20 years, able to pay the miners a considerable increase because the production of coal is so profitable at the present time? Why do not the Government stop this nonsense which arises from phase 3, get down to realities and pay the miners what they ought to be paid?

Mr. Walker: It is partly because of that situation that the Government decided, 12 months ago, to introduce the Coal Industry Act and are now offering the miners a substantial increase.

Mr. Warren: Will my right hon. Friend say how much usable oil is being exported from this country? Will he conduct an investigation into the distribution practices of oil companies, which seem to be supplying less oil than they have received?

Mr. Walker: If my hon. Friend has any evidence of that, I shall be grateful if he will let me have it. In the earlier stages there was a period of uncertainty as to future allocation, when a number of distributors decided to keep their stocks for themselves. With regard to comments on the M6 and the non-availability of diesel oil, there is plenty of


diesel oil on the M6, but it was not being sold, perhaps for that sort of reason. But the position has now substantially improved. As for exports, as a Department we are keeping a daily check with the oil companies on the various forms of oil exports, and there are considerable oil imports too.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman is refusing to introduce rationing, will he indicate that certain groups in the community should be given priority? I refer, for example, to users of diesel oil for taking children to school and workmen to work, as well as members of the medical profession who find it wasteful of their time to queue. Will he give an assurance that the price which has been bandied about, of possibly 50p for a gallon of oil, will not be charged unless it is justified?

Mr. Walker: I can tell the hon. Lady that there will be price increases due to a world-wide increase in the cost of crude oil. These will be regulated so that profiteering will not take place.
Last week we received many complaints about the difficulties of doctors. Through the oil companies and our regional offices we are endeavouring to tackle these cases. Where complaints have been made they have been dealt with.

Energy Supplies (Alternative Sources)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what extra impetus the fuel oil shortage has given to his Department's search for alternative sources of energy; and if he will step up research on the use of Great Britain's tidal estuaries for the generation of electricity, particularly the Severn Estuary.

Mr. Peter Walker: It has confirmed the correctness of the important decisions taken this year and last to make better use of our indigenous fuel resources. Great Britain's tidal estuaries offer only limited scope as power sources. Two schemes for a Severn barrage have been considered recently, but did not appear economically attractive.

Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the circumstances surrounding the rapid rise in the price of oil may make previously unattractive schemes a lot more

attractive? Is he aware that one of the schemes for the barrage is estimated to be able to produce 50 per cent. of the nation's electricity requirements? Would not this be a good time to spend a few hundred thousand pounds on setting up a hydrological survey of one of the schemes, so that we can establish facts which are not well known?

Mr. Walker: Price comparisons with oil and other sources of energy have changed dramatically. However, the alternative for this country in the longer term is nuclear energy. The cost per unit generated on the best barrage scheme available would be two and a half times that of an advanced nuclear reactor.

Mr. Dalyell: Whereas it is true that when last looked at, in the middle 1960s, the Solway barrage was economically unattractive, is the Secretary of State aware that some people now seriously think that it might be economically attractive?

Mr. Walker: I shall look specifically at that scheme to see whether that is so, but my advice is that the barrage schemes available to us could not compete with the nuclear potentiality. Obviously I shall check on this specific scheme.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that more resources are devoted not only to finding alternative sources of energy but to making better use of the resources that we have already? For example, will he encourage fluidised combustion in coal-burning stations, since it not only gives a better conversion rate but is advantageous from the point of view of the environment?

Mr. Walker: I shall consider that.

Electricity Generation

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of Central Electricity Generating Board oil-and coal-fired generating plant is at present converting less than 35 per cent. of the thermal value of fuel input into consumable energy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): The latest Annual Report of the Central Electricity Generating Board shows that in 1972–73 96 per cent. of output capacity was operating at a thermal efficiency of less than 35 per cent.

Mr. Rost: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is time we replanned our electricity generating programme with a view to encouraging the construction of more, smaller on-site power stations where waste heat could be converted into useful energy, rather than continuing with a programme of large and remote power stations where 60 per cent. of the fuel input is wasted in the cooling systems and the grid system?

Mr. Emery: Although I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument, I do not think that it would necessarily be acceptable to the House to embark at Question Time upon a fundamental debate on the laws of thermodynamics. However, there are two aspects to my hon. Friend's question. The first is that district heating schemes are under serious consideration. The second is that, none the less, the steam pressure of 2,000 psi at temperatures of over 500 degrees C., which is the standard operation on most CEGB plants, is really quite good.

Consumer Advice Centres

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the meeting held on Friday 23rd November between the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs and representatives of the local authorities to consider the discussion document on consumer advice centres.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Those present generally welcomed my proposals for co-ordinating the network of advice centres and for developing and promoting its corporate identity.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that consumers throughout the country will widely welcome the initiative that he is taking with regard to a national network of consumer advice centres and, equally, the considerable sums of money which the Government are setting apart for this purpose? Was my right hon. and learned Friend really satisfied that the local authority representatives meant to implement the scheme? Was that the case, for example, with regard to the Gloucestershire local authority?

Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks about the

general value of this initiative. My impression, which was clearly formed as a result of that meeting, was that the overwhelming majority of local authorities present attached considerable importance to the expansion of this service and were themselves keen to participate in it, consistent with the resources that they have available.

Mr. Kaufman: What advice would a consumer advice centre give to a constituent of mine who bought a washing machine from Crown Point Electrics of Hyde, found that it did not work, sent it back for repair, had it returned, and found that it still did not work and did not even have a lid, bearing in mind that she has not had a single word from Crown Point Electrics about the washing machine?

Sir G. Howe: I confess that it is hardly part of my function, in relation to a Question about advice centres, to answer every query of the hon. Gentleman's about every washing machine in his constituency. The servicing of electrical appliances is one matter to which the Director General of Fair Trading will be directing his attention.

Coal Industry

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the situation in the coal industry.

Mr. Peter Walker: I have nothing to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry in the debate which took place on 7th December.

Mr. Cronin: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate how long the Government propose to continue this obstinate and foolish confrontation with the miners and so grossly reduce coal production at a time when other sources of fuel are critically reduced? Is it not obvious that, in view of the rundown in manpower as well as the present dispute, sooner or later the Government must pay the miners much more than the present offer if they are to get them to do work which is dangerous, inconvenient and grossly ill-paid?

Mr. Walker: The present offer guarantees the miners a substantial improvement in their living standards. It is an offer


which also gives them an incentive for further productivity. With all the problems in both energy and counter-inflation, I deeply regret that the miners do not accept the offer and get back to work. [Interruption.]

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Has my right hon. Friend noticed—[Interruption.] Has my right hon. Friend noticed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be allowed to put his supplementary question without these sedentary noises.

Mr. Archer: Has the Secretary of State noticed the CEGB's total energy scheme in which it suggests that for the total good of the country the coal, electricity and gas boards should work together rather than always be rivals?

Mr. Walker: rose—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Walker: I withdraw what I said about the miners getting back to work. It is purely the overtime ban with which we are concerned, not full-time working.
We have had a series of meetings with all the nationalised industries combined to look at the energy resources problem. Considerable liaison is going on between the various industries concerned with energy supply.

Mr. Varley: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman that before Thursday his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will take the initiative to try to break this deadlock? If not, why not?

Mr. Walker: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend, who will have to decide what he considers the best way of obtaining a settlement of this matter.

Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important requirements for a negotiator in an industrial dispute is flexibility? Are not the terms of stage 3 unnecessarily restricting his right hon. Friend's hand in achieving a settlement of this dispute?

Mr. Walker: No. One of the considerable advantages of stage 3 is that it provides considerable flexibility. Indeed, stage 3 provides the flexibility

that enables the miners to have available to them an offer far greater and more generous than most sections of the community can enjoy.

Rolls-Royce Limited

Mr. Whitehead: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the latest information he has from the receiver-liquidator concerning the prospective payment to shareholders in Rolls-Royce Limited; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister for Aerospace and Shipping (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The joint liquidators of Rolls-Royce Limited have recently informed creditors and stockholders that there is an estimated potential surplus available for stockholders of just over 40p per £1 stock unit but that this is still subject to a number of uncertainties. The holders of workers' (1955) shares have been repaid at the full par value of their shares.

Mr. Whitehead: Quite apart from the reflection that those figures cast on the circumstances of the original bankruptcy, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many workers in the old Rolls-Royce company, and widows and dependants, exchanged workers' shares for ordinary shares at par? Is he also aware that there is something indecent about these people being compensated at no better value than American speculators who bought shares after the crash and now stand to make 4,000 per cent. or more profit on the deal? How much money is going to America under the terms of this payout?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not have the answer to that question. The allocation of funds is a matter for the liquidator. He has looked into this matter very carefully. The whole question of distribution is for him and not for the Government. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fact that he has been able to reach agreement with the clearing banks and accepting houses to enable the workers' shares to be repaid. I understand that no formula has been found, and it would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene to find a formula to discriminate between people holding the same shares, although they happen to be employed by the company, as opposed to outside shareholders.

Mr. Whitehead: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that this is precisely what was said about the worker shareholders—that no formula could be worked out to help them. These are workers holding ordinary shares.

Mr. Heseltine: It was very difficult to find such a formula. It depended on the generosity of others who had legitimate claims on the company forgoing some of their claims. Therefore, it did not affect ordinary creditors or the stockholders at large. It was a decision taken by the banks and clearing houses which made it possible.

TriStar

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will give priority to assisting the Lockheed 1011 TriStar with Rolls-Royce engines in view of its high reliability rate and low noise factor, and its importance to British technology.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Government have already backed the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine used in this aircraft with massive development support. The British Airways Board has placed a substantial order for the aircraft. The Government will continue to give all appropriate help to the manufacturers in their sales efforts throughout the world.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that if he could give further encouragement to this type of aircraft it would reduce the environmental disadvantage of living in areas where there are airports? Will he also take into account the fact that many people are employed in the engineering industry throughout the country and that nearly every constituency is affected, and that if he does not take action to introduce a stretched version of the aircraft, with a corresponding engine, our technology may be in danger?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in one of the permissions granted by the Secretary of State for the Environment special help was given for the use of the TriStar at Luton because of its quiet engine properties. I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said about the need to encourage quiet engines. As to the development of the engine, the company has

now bench-tested the engine to a thrust of 48,000 lbs.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend say what discussions are taking place about the fitting of the RB211 in the European airbus?

Mr. Heseltine: It is obviously the responsibility of the Rolls-Royce management to pursue openings wherever it can find them. I know that such discussions have taken place between Rolls-Royce and Air Bus Industry, but no specific proposals have been put to me, although I know that those two companies have had discussions with the British Airways Board.

Oil Production Platforms

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the facilities which are now available to him to evaluate the designs for oil production platforms.

The Minister for Industrial Development (Mr. Christopher Chataway): It is for the operating companies to carry out their own commercial and technical evaluation of alternative designs in the light of the particular conditions at the site where oil is found.
On safety aspects, my right hon. Friend has the advice of a technical advisory committee on which a number of expert bodies are represented. The National Engineering Laboratory can advise on various aspects of new design concepts. Specific studies are put in hand with consultants as necessary.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister not concede that that is a most unsatisfactory reply? Is he not aware that there is a growing feeling that a large number of concrete production platforms could be developed in areas of high unemployment if the Government took the initiative to bring the oil companies, the designers and the producers together? Will he not do that small thing and bring these three organisations together to see whether we can have these production platforms built in suitable areas in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Chataway: There have been intensive discussions with all those people about concrete platforms. The hon. Gentleman should remember that


of nine steel platforms so far ordered, six have come to this country. There are very few places where there is sufficiently deep water to enable concrete platforms to be constructed. We have commissioned consultants to scour the entire United Kingdom with a view to locating those areas where this would be possible.

Mr. Marten: Are any steps being taken to acquire or build enormous concrete tanks for oil storage in the North Sea such as those which have been built in Stavanger in Norway, so that we can overcome some of the pipe-laying difficulties?

Mr. Chataway: I do not have a figure to give to my hon. Friend, but I shall certainly notify him if there is a case of that kind. I do not believe that it falls within the present plans of the oil companies.

Mr. Strang: Does not the Minister accept that these decisions are far too important to be left to oil companies and construction firms? Does he not agree that there is an overwhelming case for commissioning an expert study of platform design to complement the one that has been commissioned on sites, so that we can come to a decision which will be in the national interest?

Mr. Chataway: The study by consultants which we have already announced has also concerned itself with alternative designs, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, ideas about designs for platforms, and particularly for these concrete platforms, are changing very rapidly.

Mr. Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Shipping (Oil Supplies)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how Her Majesty's Government's cutback of 10 per cent. on oil supplies will affect the bunkering of British shipping and its invisible earnings.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made on Friday. Our shipping industry is already taking steps, through reductions in

ship speeds and other measures, to cut substantially its consumption of oil fuel. It will not be possible to isolate the effects of the reductions in oil supplies on the industry's invisible earnings because of the other factors involved.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: In view of the importance of invisible earnings and the fact that ships serving the United Kingdom need to bunker world-wide, will my hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to encourage other countries to follow the example of this country and give priority to bunkers?

Mr. Heseltine: I have not thought it necessary to take such positive steps, because no representations have been made to me by the shipping industry that it is necessary. If any evidence of difficulties were brought to my attention I should see what could be done in the circumstances.

Mr. Booth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the range of activities of merchant and naval ships is so wide that in a period of oil tanker shortage there is a place for determining priorities? Will the Minister give an undertaking that this matter is being examined and that priority will be given to tankers moving oil to this country and ships moving food and other essential supplies?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in the statement which I made on Friday I have given priority status to ships involved in trade to and from the United Kingdom.

Lonrho

Mr. Meacher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects his Department's investigation into the affairs of Lonrho to be completed.

Sir G. Howe: The inspectors have already done a considerable amount of work. It is not yet possible to say when they will complete their investigation.

Mr. Meacher: Will they investigate the reason why the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was appointed as consultant in September 1971 at a grossly inflated salary, since he could offer only part-time service, and will they investigate also whether there was any connection between his appointment and the


fact that in the very same month Mr. Newman, managing director of Lonrho (South Africa), and three other Lonrho directors were arrested in Johannesburg on fraud charges, with hectic efforts being made by the company to secure their release ever since?

Sir G. Howe: I do not know what connection there may or may not be between those matters, or how far the inspectors will think it right to follow up the points made by the hon. Gentleman. They will be conducting a widespread investigation in accordance with their terms of reference under statute.

Small Firms Division (Staff)

Mr. Redmond: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons are employed in the small firms division of his Department.

Mr. Chataway: Twenty-six. The staff of the small firms information centres—30 in all—are on the strength of the Department's regional offices.

Mr. Redmond: Will some of these people go to Bolton to advise and help some of the small firms which have been writing to me over the past eight or nine months about the total absence of supplies of wood, steel, phenol, Polythene and, now, textiles fibres and yarns? Also, while they are there will they examine another problem which I have raised on other occasions in the House, namely, the anxiety of these firms and some of their suppliers, who say that they must not in any circumstances disclose their names for fear of victimisation by other suppliers or by one of the nationalised corporations?

Mr. Chataway: On the last point, if I understand my hon. Friend aright, I am satisfied that there is no discrimination against small firms on the part of the British Steel Corporation. As regards supplies of steel and other materials, the small firms information centres can put small firms in touch with those who can give them expert advice.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Minister bear in mind that many small firms feel that they are swamped by the administrative expenses of VAT? Does he recognise that with the present and probable future rate of inflation many small firms which are not now covered by VAT will

be drawn within the net, and for this reason will the Government alter the threshold figure? Second, how will the Department protect small firms from the EEC proposal, already adopted by the Commission, which, far from raising the threshold figure, would actually lower it?

Mr. Chataway: I shall certainly bear in mind the effect on small firms of any proposal on the scope of VAT, but I must say that I do not find among small firms any hankering after SET.

Balance of Trade

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Great Britain's current balance of trade situation.

Mr. Peter Walker: The changing terms of trade and the increase in imports of machinery, industrial materials and fuels have resulted in a substantial deficit in our balance of trade.

Mr. Carter: Is not the prime reason for the expected £2,000 million balance of payments deficit next year the Government's appalling economic policies? Will the Secretary of State now tell us what course he will be urging upon his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to reverse this situation?

Mr. Walker: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is "No, Sir", and the answer to the second part also is "No, Sir".

Mr. Skeet: Will my right hon. Friend give his estimate of the trend in commodity prices?

Mr. Walker: think that my hon. Friend will realise that in present circumstances it is impossible to do that. For one thing, if oil prices substantially increase and oil supplies diminish there could be a large reduction in world trade, which could result in a substantial fall in commodity prices. It is, therefore, quite impossible to predict.

Mr. Benn: But is it not clear that in this matter, as in the oil situation, what the country wants is that the Minister shall tell us the facts—that is all, just the facts—and the best prospects which can be made available to the country


as a whole? Although very gloomy estimates are undesirable, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the foolish optimism which he has shown has done, if anything, much more damage than the gloomy forecasts? Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that what the Government are ready to tell the special NEDC meeting on 21st December will be made available also to Parliament before it rises for the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Walker: Having read over the weekend the right hon. Gentleman's confessions of how, taking note of the experts, his Government ran down the coal industry, the railways and other industries, I can understand his concern. If he wants facts I can readily give him one. Imports of industrial materials, fuel and machinery over the first 10 months of this year are running at a total increase of £2,500 million over the same period last year.

Steelworks

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now issue a general direction to the British Steel Corporation not to close any steel works which are capable of becoming modern mini-steel plants.

Mr. Emery: To give such a direction would be quite unrealistic, and in any case the timing and location of closures are matters which fall within the responsibilities of the British Steel Corporation.

Mr. Golding: Is it not ridiculous to close steel plants at a time of grave steel shortage? May it not be that the Government's estimates of future steel demand as are as far out as past forecasts of coal demand?

Mr. Emery: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should know that there is no closure taking place now where there is a shortage of supply of any of the products produced by the plant concerned.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister take seriously the question put to him with reference to the steel shortage, since what is now proposed could mean serious redundancies in some of the steel producing areas? Will he recognise also that many of the steel pipes for oil are

coming from Japan, and if the so-called antiquated mills were brought up to modern requirements the necessary pipes could be produced in this country?

Mr. Emery: I think that I answered the first point in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). On the second point, the standard of quality of pipe required for use under the North Sea is such that the British Steel Corporation has had great difficulty in matching the specification. However, where the pipeline has come on land in Scotland, the corporation has been immensely successful.

West London Air Terminal

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with British Airways regarding its proposal to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities.

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of the current fuel situation, he will cause a review to be made of the decision to close down the West London Air Terminal check-in facilities.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I discussed with the group managing director of British Airways on 26th November the action the board proposes to take to ensure that the withdrawal of these facilities does not cause serious inconvenience to passengers. I am satisfied that the board's plans should not result in any significant increase in fuel consumption.

Mr. Millan: Will the Minister take it that many users of West London Air Terminal, including myself, are quite unimpressed by British Airways' arguments for closing the check-in facilities, and that this view is now shared by the airline users' committee, the recently established consumer body? Will the hon. Gentleman do all he can to persuade British Airways to reverse its decision, which may cause considerable discomfort to passengers and congestion at Heathrow?

Mr. Heseltine: I have had discussions with the chief executive of British Airways, very much for the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention


and particularly in the light of the consumer committee's report. British Airways has announced a number of things which it intends to do to meet the report of the consumer committee. I think that the House will wish to bear in mind also that from the beginning of October the facilities in question were withdrawn from 40 per cent. of passengers using the West London Air Terminal and, so far as my Department is aware, no hardship has arisen.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: But is my hon. Friend aware that, when this service is completely withdrawn, many people will have to go by bus and there will be no facilities for their luggage to be taken? In fact, the buses do not have that facility at present. Second, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that we are to have a new Underground railway out to London Airport, and there are no facilities on the Underground for the carrying of luggage? Will he, therefore, ask those responsible to see that these facilities are made available when the terminal is closed?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that my hon. Friend may have misunderstood the nature of the service provided by the buses. There are luggage facilities now. The only issue is whether one checks in one's luggage at the terminal or at Heathrow. The argument is that, as one has to keep specific buses for specific aircraft at present, the buses often run to Heathrow half empty, and it would be easier to provide a regular service at, say, four-minute or 10-minute intervals, without allocating specific buses to specific flights. The other question which my hon. Friend raises is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries, and I shall draw it to his attention.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman's reply completely ignores widespread representations. Does he realise that two of the arguments put forward by British Airways for the withdrawal of check-in facilities were that there were far more people using their cars to go to Heathrow and that traffic congestion often held up a bus and delayed aircraft? In view of the changed fuel situation, will the hon. Gentleman have further discussions with a view to changing his mind?

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the House will not feel that my reply ignored any representations. I was dealing with points made in some of those representations. As the House knows, 80 per cent. of people using Heathrow now go there by car, and, although there may well be some reduction as a result of the fuel situation, it is not likely that the gap will be closed between those who go by car and those who go by bus. The question is whether the 80 per cent. of passengers who have gone by car should in certain circumstances be delayed by the possibility of some of the 20 per cent. who have gone from the terminal being delayed because a particular bus is held up for a certain time. In view of the difficulties with inter-lining and so on, on balance the argument seems to be that the present proposal of British Airways, with the amendments which it has made, will not in fact cause major inconvenience.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the very powerful case just put by my hon. Friend, will he cause an investigation to be held on the reason why BEA decided to commit public expenditure on this white elephant and how it was that the officials in the Ministry of Civil Aviation decided to approve such a wastage of public capital? Surely it is clear that the thing had no commercial value at all.

Mr. Heseltine: This all happened a considerable time ago, and circumstances have no doubt changed dramatically since then, with the ever-increasing proportion of people using their cars to go to Heathrow. However, my hon. Friend's point is most interesting and I shall look into it.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: May I suggest on behalf of the consumer that the Minister is going in completely the wrong direction? Surely he is encouraging people to drive to London Airport, where the parking facilities are already overloaded. Will he consider the difficulties facing elderly people, those going on school trips and those who are travelling for the first time?

Mr. Heseltine: On reflection, the hon. Lady may not want to use the word "encouraging", because the proportions


are now so different that it is inconceivable that any policy we adopted would be likely to change the numbers of cars going to Heathrow. A number of changes have been introduced recently to help the sort of people she referred to. It was already intended that there should be sufficient porters to deal with the luggage problem but, in addition, a full-time supervisor will be on duty, to help people who might suffer in the way that the hon. Member fears. For anyone who suffers the ultimate inconvenience of not catching a plane the airlines have said they will see that such people are either booked on a later plane or that accommodation is provided for them in hotels at Heathrow.

Mr. Warren: On British Airways' own admission, only 0·4 per cent. of its flights were delayed last year because of passengers being held up between the check-in point at West London and the airport. This year 1 million people have already used the terminal. As it will save only £500,000 to cut out the facility, cannot passengers be surcharged 40p to cover the facility, so that it may continue.

Mr. Heseltine: Surely my hon. Friend will ask why no other capital city in the world has this facility provided. In addition, 40 per cent. of the 1·3 million people referred to by my hon. Friend as using the service, finding that the facility has been withdrawn since October, have suffered no inconvenience. Admittedly, on the airline's figures only 0·4 per cent. of the flights are delayed, but where that delay takes place—perhaps because of a breakdown and, therefore, congestion on the M4—the other passengers already on the aircraft suffer the great inconvenience of having to wait, and we must remember the inter-lining communications which follow.

Bicycles

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of likely future demand for bicycles during the fuel crisis, he is satisfied that the supply will be adequate.

Mr. Chataway: The industry is at present satisfying demand in this country. Its prospects of continuing to do so depend on the ways in which the supply of its raw materials and the demand for its

products are affected by the availability of oil. I shall continue to keep in close touch with the industry.

Mr. McCrindle: This is not intended to be a frivolous matter. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the demand for bicycles has increased substantially over the last three years and export orders continue to increase? Would not this be an appropriate time to encourage the cycle industry to expand? If we did that—perhaps this part of the question might be considered frivolous—and used cycles a little more, would it not be very much to our physical advantage?

Mr. Chataway: The industry has very good prospects but I do not think in the circumstances that it needs any encouragement from me to expand.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Minister see the situation arising in which Ministers will be supplied with bicycles instead of cars? If that situation is expected to arise, will he ensure that they have a fixed gear so that they may continue to back-pedal?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that whatever the form of locomation we shall make equally impressive progress.

Coal Mines (Weekly Earnings)

21. Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what would be the expected average weekly earnings for surface workers and underground workers under the National Coal Board's current offer; and how this compares with the equivalent weekly earnings in 1970.

Mr. Emery: On a comparable basis to the figures used in the Wilberforce Report the expected average earnings under the NCB's current offer, including a productivity agreement, will be £46·50 for surface workers and £49·65 for underground workers. The comparable figures for 1970 were £24·10 on surface and £29·05 underground.

Mr. Grylls: The miners may be asking for more, but is it not clear that they have been treated more generously by this Government—taking account of the Wilberforce settlement and the current offer—than they have ever been treated before? Have they not been treated certainly more generously than most


industrial workers? Is it not also true that with allowances and overtime face workers will be earning very nearly £3,000 a year.

Mr. Emery: What my hon. Friend says is correct because his figures show that, whereas immediately after the Wilberforce settlement in April 1972 the miners' ratio was 1·07 compared with manufacturing industry, if the NCB offer were accepted the ratio would once again be higher than that for manufacturing industries.

Mr. Eadie: Will the Minister try to explain the significance of his remarks? Surely there is something wrong with the financial statistics, because 700 miners are leaving the industry every week. Is it not time the Minister cut out the propaganda and tried, on Thursday, to make a settlement with the miners to get the nation the coal it needs?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member should take into account the fact that recruitment is still progressing at a steady rate of between 300 and 350 a week, of which only half are miners returning to the pits. Under all Governments there has been a problem of recruitment at times of prosperity. Things are no different now than at any time in the past.

Bottle Manufacturers

Mrs. Doris Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has held with bottle manufacturers.

Mr. Chataway: We are in constant touch with the glass manufacturers' federation, which represents glass container manufacturers, about the bottle supply situation, and are urgently considering its representations about fuel oil supplies.

Mrs. Fisher: is it not absurd for the situation concerning non-returnable bottles to be allowed to continue when, over Christmas, we might find the essential distribution of milk severely restricted? What does the Minister intend to do about the production of non-returnable bottles?

Mr. Chataway: I bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member. However, she will appreciate that at short notice it is not possible to alter production lines. She must remember that the

industry is heavily dependent upon fuel oil.

Mr. Fortescue: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the use of glass bottles in the food industry goes far beyond whisky and milk? Will he give an assurance that fuel supplies for the manufacture of glass bottles will be given the utmost priority?

Mr. Chataway: We shall certainly consider carefully the industry's claims for fuel.

Mr. Alan Williams: What representations are the Government making to the supermarkets to reverse those policies which have deliberately killed the market for returnable bottles? Does the Minister not realise that bottles are not the only form of container and package now becoming scarce? Did he see the report, in The Times Business News today, of panic buying and of suppliers rationing goods to the retailers? What action are the Government taking now to ensure a continuity of supplies of tinned and bottled foodstuffs to the shops?

Mr. Chataway: The hon. Gentleman goes a good deal wider than the Question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher). With regard to glass manufacturers, we are considering the specific point which the hon. Gentleman raises.

IRELAND (TRIPARTITE CONFERENCE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Mr. Speaker, I will with permission, make a statement about the tripartite conference at Sunningdale between the British and Irish Governments and the parties involved in the Northern Ireland Executive. The House will know that the conference was brought to a successful conclusion and that an agreed communiqué was issued last night. Copies of it have been made available in the Vote Office and it will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
The House will not wish me to repeat the details which are recorded in the communiqué. The outcome of the conference has shown that the existence of apparently incompatible political aspirations has not prevented Her Majesty's Government, the Irish Government and


the Northern Ireland Executive-designate from working together for the benefit of both parts of Ireland.
The communiqué sets out for the first time parallel declarations by the British and Irish Governments that the status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland so desire. These declarations will be incorporated in a formal agreement which will be registered at the United Nations.
The conference agreed on the establishment of a Council of Ireland which will have both executive and harmonising functions and a consultative rôle. The Council will have equal representation from both North and South with safeguards for the British Government's interests and will act on the basis of unanimity. There will also be a consultative assembly, with equal representation from the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The communiqué also sets out fresh proposals for dealing with politically motivated violence throughout Ireland.
The way is now open for the appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive, and, subject to the approval of Parliament, for the devolution of powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The necessary legislation and legislative instruments will be brought before Parliament later this week.
It was agreed that a formal conference should be held early in the New Year, in which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive can meet together to consider reports on the studies which are being commissioned and to sign the agreement reached.
The agreement has immense significance for the future of Ireland. The fact that such an agreement has been reached is due to the constructive and realistic attitude taken in the talks both by the Irish Government and by those parties in Northern Ireland who will MOW come together in a Northern Ireland Executive. It now remains for us all to implement the agreement for the benefit of the people of Ireland as a whole.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I join the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in commending the agreement to the House.

For my part, as Northern Irish affairs have been conducted in the House on a bipartisan basis for some years past, I pay tribute to the achievement and to all who played their part in it. I refer, in particular, to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what he did in making the agreement possible.
The Council of Ireland proposition was one which was first revived in modern times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have pressed such a proposition.
As the agreement will be under attack by shellbacks and by subversives of various persuasions, none of us should today say anything which would make a vulnerable situation still more difficult. It is the duty of all of us in the House to make the Sunningdale agreement stick.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for what he has said. We join with him in our hopes that the agreement and, in particular, the declaration will be accepted fully in Northern Ireland and by the other parties in the Dail in exactly the same way as the all-party approach in this country.

Captain Orr: While I in no way impugn the motives of my right hon. Friend and others in the agreement, its effect is to deceive someone. If the purpose of the agreement is better law enforcement and fruitful economic co-operation in Northern Ireland, the erection of this vast edifice tends to deceive the people of the Irish Republic that a united Ireland is round the corner. If, on the other hand, there is another motive, it is the people of Ulster who will be deceived. Surely an executive based upon such a flimsy type of deception is bound to be unstable and is bound to feed violence on both sides? Surely the outlook must be grave?

The Prime Minister: I must strongly repudiate everything which my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I cannot accept that there is any element of deception. For the first time an Irish Government have declared their position on the status of Northern Ireland. The agreement is


to be registered as an international agreement at the United Nations. This is a major step forward of the utmost importance to everyone in Northern Ireland. I met no one at the conference during the long hours when we were working together who believed that a united Ireland was round the corner. Far from it. It was acknowledged that at present the majority of people in Northern Ireland wish to remain in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government have accepted that if at any time the people of Northern Ireland change their view their wishes will be respected. That is absolutely right. There is no element of deception.
There is not, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, an enormous structure. All parties at the conference wished to ensure that the secretariat should be small and limited to the requirements of the work of the Council. It is, after all, a small council consisting of only 14 members. It was felt that the assembly should have all such services as are necessary to enable it to debate and advise when required. It is a consultative assembly and, therefore, it is out to achieve the purpose of enabling both parts of Ireland to work together more effectively in the common good.

Mr. Hooson: On behalf of the Liberal Party, I add my congratulations to all the parties who took part in the discussions for reaching an agreement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some people who will never be satisfied and who will try to shoot down any agreement? Is he further aware that that has been the great tragedy of Ireland, both in the North and in the South, over the years? To what extent have the executive powers of the Council of Ireland been agreed?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his words of welcome for the agreement. It has been agreed that the Council should have executive powers. It will act on the unanimity rule. That was agreed on the basis of common accord between all those who took part in the discussions. We have listed the elements which we conclude should now be considered either for executive function or for harmonisation. Those elements will now be ex-

amined in detail and, as I said, recommendations will be made to the formal conference which is to be held early in the New Year. Each item will be considered on its merits.
We came to the conclusion, after considerable discussion, that it was not possible at the conference for those round the table to decide, for example, whether in the electricity industry North and South the Council should have executive functions and precisely what those functions should be. We thought it essential that there should be detailed examination of each item before reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Deedes: I acknowledge the rôle which not only the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has played in achieving this historic step forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree, and will he bear in mind sympathetically, that much may now depend on the rôle which the loyalists and Unionists apart from those who have been in discussion at Sunningdale may now assign for themselves—namely, whether they wish to be a working or a wrecking opposition? Will my right hon. Friend underline that point?

The Prime Minister: I agree fully with what my right hon. Friend has said. All who were at the conference were distressed by the scenes which took place at the Assembly last week. We hope that we shall never see the like of them again.
By the declaration of the Irish Government to register at the United Nations and the fact that the Council of Ireland will work on the unanimity rule, we hope that we have given a full assurance to all in Northern Ireland that their interests have been, and will be, properly protected.

Mr. Duffy: I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to everyone else concerned in this historic and tremendous achievement. While none of us should say anything which may prejudice the acceptance of the Council of Ireland in any quarter, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if it is to have continuing life it must have the capacity to grow and to evolve? Does he not agree also that there is, therefore, a responsibility on any Government at Westminster to promote these conditions whilst


at the same time winning the active consent of the people of Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The conference was agreed entirely on this point, and there is capacity for the Council to grow. It has to do so by the unanimity rule, whereby both North and South are assured that their interests will be looked after. Where both feel that they can co-operate in the common interest, it is open to the Council to develop and grow in order to do so.
I take the view that, wherever possible, all decisions about the Council should be taken by those who are going to operate it—the Irish Government and the three parties represented in the Executive-designate. We were willing and able to help, but I felt it much better, as the Council is to consist of North and South and not the United Kingdom Government, that they should work out together how they wished to operate and to settle, for example, their places of meeting, procedures and so on.

Mr. McMaster: I, too, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and the other parties present at this far-sighted agreement. Can my right hon. Friend tell us how far the other parties in the Republic support the statement in the communiqué by the Government in the South of Ireland recognising the status of Northern Ireland? Does this statement preclude any amendment of Article 2 of the Irish Constitution? Secondly, can the provisions relating to the trial of murderers be extended to other serious offences committed in the North and in the South? Will that have any effect on the amendment of the extradition laws of the South of Ireland? Finally what effect will the conference have as a whole on restoring law and order, both North and South of the border, and in particular on improving the security of the border itself?

The Prime Minister: I have already expressed the hope that the other parties in the Dail will support the whole of this agreement. Of course, this rests on the confidence of the Irish Prime Minister that he can gain the support of Parliament for the declaration which he will make, and I think that was the right basis on which to act in this conference.
This declaration does not in any way preclude the alteration of the Irish con-
Stitution if the people of Southern Ireland so wish. Indeed, Mr. Cosgrave informed us at the conference that there is already a constitutional reform committee in existence, which is examining the whole of the Irish Constitution. As we know from our own proceedings, such commissions naturally take time to report. What we wanted at this conference was immediate action at the same time as we put forward proposals for the Council.
With regard to the question of offences, the Irish Government indicated that they would take immediate and effective action to deal with the particular problem of those accused of murder. The question of of the other offences will immediately be studied by the commission. Again, in the discussions we found that it was extremely difficult to come to conclusions on such proposals as that for a court of Ireland because, obviously, considerable problems are involved. I do not say that they cannot be overcome, but they need detailed examination by those specialised in the matter. The question of the other offences will come up for consideration by the commission we are setting up

Mr. Callaghan: May I offer my congratulations to all those who have succeeded in getting both the Northern Ireland Executive and the Council of Ireland? Did the right hon. Gentleman hear Lord O'Neill of the Maine, former Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, saying at lunchtime that, while he hoped the agreement would succeed, he feared that the history of Ireland showed that extremists always win in the end? I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to repeat once again that we shall proceed, despite the cost to this country, with the utmost resolution against extremists on both sides, who are the only people who can prevent the majority from having a peaceful future?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I can give the right hon. Gentleman the categorical assurance for which he asks. Of course, I know that there are some who will be pessimistic about anything in Ireland ever coming to fruition. It was right that in the discussions at the conference we should examine critically every proposal, and those round the table were anxious that there should be a proper balance between all the interests involved. I believe that we have achieved that. I believe that we


can now make progress in this respect. What is more, I believe that the agreement reached will so improve the political atmosphere over a large part of Ireland that it will make it more difficult for men of violence to achieve their purpose.

Mr. Goodhart: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on this major step forward. Can he, however, give an assurance that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until the majority of those on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, not just a simple majority of those voting in a single referendum, give a positive indication that they want a change in the status of their country?

The Prime Minister: Parliament has already laid down the procedures for ascertaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and we shall adhere to them.

Mr. Fitt: Does the Prime Minister agree that it was his impression that all those people involved in these very delicate negotiations were acting with the free consent of their electors, of those who had elected them to office, and that there was absolutely no compulsion upon them to reach any agreement except that they were acting in the best interests of the people, not only of Northern Ireland but, indeed, of Ireland? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the agreement was reached only with the co-operation of himself, the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, particularly my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), and that it has been a joint effort over many years to try to lay the basis for the very successful conclusion arrived at yesterday?
In condemning the violent actions of violent men on both sides in Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman also condemn the violent words and the incitement to violence now being expressed by elected Members of this House in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I certainly acknowledge the contributions made by the right hon Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member

for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in the proposals they put forward some time ago, some of which were embodied in the agreement. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows, I acknowledged to the conference last night and to the Press at the signing the part which my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has played. Again I pay tribute to those round the table from the Executive-designate as well as to the Prime Minister and his colleagues from the Republic.
I willingly confirm that the whole of these arrangements were reached voluntarily and without any sort of pressure or compulsion. I would have thought that the length of time the conference took, and the amount of work we had to do, indicated that clearly enough to everybody outside the conference, and those inside who heard the varied proposals put forward—some of them very ingenious for solving the problems we were confronted with also realised that there was no question other than that of voluntary effort by everybody and, in the end, voluntary agreement.

Mr. Harold Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman's answers have been spoken in a voice not quite as robust as sometimes it is, will he accept our sympathy, and also recognise that the voice of this House today, through the exchanges about the agreement, is unassailably the voice of the House of Commons and that, should it be challenged from any quarter, we shall join him in supporting any motion put before the House in support of the agreement reached this weekend?
Since the word "loyalist" was used by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), will the Prime Minister also recognise that when some of us hear the word "loyalist" we feel that it is sometimes a euphemism for "disloyalist"? Whether that may come from one side or the other of those who oppose it in Northern Ireland, the House of Commons, as it has shown today, is 100 per cent. behind what the right hon. Gentleman has put to the House.

The Prime Minister: Again I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the wholehearted support he has given to the agreement, as indeed has the Liberal Party.


The House knows that I condemn all those who use violence or try to wreck the democratic process. We have under way a new democratic process in Northern Ireland and a democratic arrangement between North and South. I hope that the Dail will give as wholehearted support to the agreement as we in this House are giving it.

Following is the communiqué:

1. The Conference between the British and Irish Governments and the parties involved in the Northern Ireland Executive (designate) met at Sunningdale on 6, 7, 8 and 9 December 1973.

2. During the Conference, each delegation stated their position on the status of Northern Ireland.

3. The Taoiseach said that the basic principle of the Conference was that the participants had tried to see what measure of agreement of benefit to all the people concerned could be secured. In doing so, all had reached accommodation with one another on practical arrangements. But none had compromised, and none had asked others to compromise, in relation to basic aspirations. The people of the Republic, together with a minority in Northern Ireland as represented by the SDLP delegation, continued to uphold the aspiration towards a united Ireland. The only unity they wanted to see was a unity established by consent.

4. Mr. Brian Faulkner said that delegates from Northern Ireland came to the Conference as representatives of apparently incompatible sets of political aspirations who had found it possible to reach agreement to join together in government because each accepted that in doing so they were not sacrificing principles or aspirations. The desire of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, as represented by the Unionist and Alliance delegations, remained firm.

5. The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status.
The British Government solemnly declared that it was, and would remain, their policy to support the wishes of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. The present status of Northern Ireland is that it is part of the United Kingdom. If in the future the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should indicate a wish to become part of a united Ireland, the British Government would support that wish.

6. The Conference agreed that a formal agreement incorporating the declarations of

the British and Irish Governments would be signed at the formal stage of the Conference and registered at the United Nations.

7. The Conference agreed that a Council of Ireland would be set up. It would be confined to representatives of the two parts of Ireland, with appropriate safeguards for the British Government's financial and other interests. It would comprise a Council of Ministers with executive and harmonising functions and a consultative role, and a Consultative Assembly with advisory and review functions. The Council of Ministers would act by unanimity, and would comprise a core of seven members of the Irish Government and an equal number of members of the Northern Ireland Executive with provision for the participation of other non-voting members of the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive or Administration when matters within their departmental competence were discussed. The Council of Ministers would control the functions of the Council. The Chairmanship would rotate on an agreed basis between representatives of the Irish Government and of the Northern Ireland Executive. Arrangements would be made for the location of the first meeting, and the location of subsequent meetings would be determined by the Council of Ministers. The Consultative Assembly would consist of 60 members, 30 members from Dail Eireann chosen by the Dail on the basis of proportional representation by the single transferable vote, and 30 members from the Northern Ireland Assembly chosen by that Assembly and also on that basis. The members of the Consultative Assembly would be paid allowances. There would be a Secretariat to the Council, which would be kept as small as might be commensurate with efficiency in the operation of the Council. The Secretariat would service the institutions of the Council and would, under the Council of Ministers, supervise the carrying out of the executive and harmonising functions and the consultative role of the Council. The Secretariat would be headed by a Secretary-General. Following the appointment of a Northern Ireland Executive, the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive would nominate their representatives to a Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers would then appoint a Secretary-General and decide upon the location of its permanent headquarters. The Secretary-General would be directed to proceed with the drawing up of plans for such headquarters. The Council of Ministers would also make arrangements for the recruitment of the staff of the Secretariat in a manner and on conditions which would, as far as is practicable, be consistent with those applying to public servants in the two administrations.

8. In the context of its harmonising functions and consultative role, the Council of Ireland would undertake important work relating, for instance, to the impact of EEC membership. As for executive functions, the first step would be to define and agree these in detail. The Conference therefore decided that, in view of the administrative complexities involved, studies would at once be set in hand to identify and, prior to the formal stage of the conference, report on areas of common


interest in relation to which a Council of Ireland would take executive decisions, and, in appropriate cases, be responsible for carrying those decisions into effect. In carrying out these studies, and also in determining what should be done by the Council in terms of harmonisation, the objectives to be borne in mind would include the following:

(1) to achieve the best utilisation of scarce skills, expertise and resources;
(2) to avoid, in the interests of economy and efficiency, unnecessary duplication of effort; and
(3) to ensure complementary rather than competitive effort where this is to the advantage of agriculture, commerce and industry.

In particular, these studies would be directed to identifying, for the purposes of executive action by the Council of Ireland, suitable aspects of activities in the following broad fields:

(a) exploitation, conservation and development of natural resources and the environment;
(b) agricultural matters (including agricultural research, animal health and operational aspects of the Common Agricultural Policy), forestry and fisheries;
(c) co-operative ventures in the fields of trade and industry;
(d) electricity generation;
(e) tourism;
(f) roads and transport;
(g) advisory services in the field of public health;
(h) sport, culture and the arts.

It would be for the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate from time to time as to the extent of functions to be devolved to the Council of Ireland. Where necessary, the British Government will cooperate in this devolution of functions. Initially, the functions to be vested would be those identified in accordance with the procedures set out above and decided, at the formal stage of the conference, to be transferred.

9. (i) During the initial period following the establishment of the Council, the revenue of the Council would be provided by means of grants from the two administrations in Ireland towards agreed projects and budgets, according to the nature of the service involved.

(ii) It was also agreed that further studies would be put in hand forthwith and completed as soon as possible of methods of financing the Council after the initial period which would be consonant with the responsibilities and functions assigned to it.
(iii) It was agreed that the cost of the Secretariat of the Council of Ireland would be shared equally, and other services would be financed broadly in proportion to where expenditure of benefit accrues.
(iv) The amount of money required to finance the Council's activities will depend upon the functions assigned to it from time to time.

(v) While Britain continues to pay subsidies to Northern Ireland, such payments would not involve Britain participating in the Council, it being accepted nevertheless that it would be legitimate for Britain to safeguard in an appropriate way her financial involvement in Northern Ireland.

10. It was agreed by all parties that persons committing crimes of violence, however motivated, in any part of Ireland should be brought to trial irrespective of the part of Ireland in which they are located. The concern which large sections of the people of Northern Ireland felt about this problem was in particular forcefully expressed by the representatives of the Unionist and Alliance parties. The representatives of the Irish Government stated that they understood and fully shared this concern. Different ways of solving this problem were discussed; among them were the amendment of legislation operating in the two jurisdictions on extradition, the creation of a common law enforcement area in which an all-Ireland court would have jurisdiction, and the extension of the jurisdiction of domestic courts so as to enable them to try offences committed outside the jurisdiction. It was agreed that problems of considerable legal complexity were involved, and that the British and Irish Governments would jointly set up a commission to consider all the proposals put forward at the Conference and to recommend as a matter of extreme urgency the most effective means of dealing with those who commit these crimes. The Irish Government undertook to take immediate and effective legal steps so that persons coming within their jurisdiction and accused of murder, however motivated, committed in Northern Ireland will be brought to trial, and it was agreed that any similar reciprocal action that may be needed in Northern Ireland be taken by the appropriate authorities.

11. It was agreed that the Council would be invited to consider in what way the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms would be expressed in domestic legislation in each part of Ireland. It would recommend whether further legislation or the creation of other institutions, administrative or judicial, is required in either part or embracing the whole island to provide additional protection in the field of human rights. Such recommendations could include the functions of an Ombudsman or Commissioner for Complaints, or other arrangements of a similar nature which the Council of Ireland might think appropriate.

12. The Conference also discussed the question of policing and the need to ensure public support for and identification with the police service throughout the whole community. It was agreed that no single set of proposals would achieve these aims overnight, and that time would be necessary. The Conference expressed the hope that the wide range of agreement that had been reached, and the consequent formation of a power-sharing Executive, would make a major contribution to the creation of an atmosphere throughout the community where there would be widespread support for and identification with all the institutions of Northern Ireland.

13. It was broadly accepted that the two parts of Ireland are to a considerable extent inter-dependent in the whole field of law and order, and that the problems of political violence and identification with the police service cannot be solved without taking account of that fact.

14. Accordingly, the British Government stated that, as soon as the security problems were resolved and the new institutions were seen to be working effectively, they would wish to discuss the devolution of responsibility for normal policing and how this might be achieved with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Police.

15. With a view to improving policing throughout the island and developing community identification with and support for the police services, the governments concerned will co-operate under the auspices of a Council of Ireland through their respective police authorities. To this end, the Irish Government would set up a Police Authority, appointments to which would be made after consultation with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. In the case of the Northern Ireland Police Authority, appointments would be made after consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, which would consult with the Council of Ministers of the Council of Ireland. When the two Police Authorities are constituted, they will make their own arrangements to achieve the objectives set out above.

16. An independent complaints procedure for dealing with complaints against the police will be set up.

17. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will set up an all-party committee from the Assembly to examine how best to introduce effective policing throughout Northern Ireland with particular reference to the need to achieve public identification with the police.

18. The Conference took note of a reaffirmation by the British Government of their firm commitment to bring detention to an end in Northern Ireland for all sections of the community as soon as the security situation permits, and noted also that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland hopes to be able to bring into use his statutory powers of selective release in time for a number of detainees to be released before Christmas.

19. The British Government stated that, in the light of the decisions reached at the Conference, they would now seek the authority of Parliament to devolve full powers to the Northern Ireland Executive and Northern Ireland Assembly as soon as possible. The formal appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive would then be made.

20. The Conference agreed that a formal conference would be held early in the New Year at which the British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive would meet together to consider reports on the studies which have been commissioned and to sign the agreement reached.

Sunningdale Park.

9th December 1973.

HIGH COURT JUDGES

Mr. Speaker: On 22nd November, in response to requests from the hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), I undertook to examine any submissions that were made to me about the procedures available to Members who wished to make charges against, or examine the conduct of, judges of the High Court.
I have looked carefully at the precedents which have since been drawn to my attention and have consulted my advisers. I am drawn to a simple conclusion, which is this. Whereas there is very little restriction on the form of motion which can be considered by the House in this context there is no way by which I could give such a motion precedence over the Orders of the Day.
As to the presentation of articles of charge referred to by the hon. Members, such a proceeding has been so long out of use that I am in some doubt as to whether it is still available. But in any case it would have to be part of a proceeding initiated by a motion and is therefore governed by the same consideration that all the time of the House is now appropriated according to the provisions of Standing Order No. 6. Standing Order No. 9 could not apply to these cases since the form of debate under that Standing Order is a motion for the Adjournment.

Mr. Orme: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank you on behalf of my colleagues and myself who have made representations to your legal advisers and to the Clerks. We have received nothing but help and consideration in presenting what we consider to be a very serious and important constitutional issue. I do not take issue with you, Mr. Speaker, about your ruling. I accept it fully and recognise that because of the change of procedure in the House it is not possible, unfortunately, for private Members to use the time of the House in a way possible in the past.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the last time that articles of charge were laid was in 1845 in the Lord Abinger case and in 1867 with regard to Sir Fitzroy Kelly. We represented to you, Sir, that


the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 re-embodied Section 12(1) of the 1711 Act of Settlement 1970 which allows Members of Parliament to raise on certain occasions the conduct of High Court judges with a view to considering whether they should be dismissed. We believe, therefore, that the 1925 Act brought the matter up to date, but we accept your point, Mr. Speaker, that, because of the lack of time, you have not the right to give this matter precedence over the Orders of the Day.
However, 187 Members signed the motion because we believed that this matter should be debated in the House. We shall not remove the motion from the Order Paper. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to advise us whether there is any other means whereby we can bring the matter before the House. In the interests of common justice, having made charges against a High Court judge and knowing the seriousness of that, we believe that Sir John Donaldson and other people who have opinions should be allowed to defend themselves and to make their own representations. This is the high court of Parliament; this is the highest court of the land in this regard. I therefore ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, whether there is some other manner by which we can bring this matter before the House.

Mr. Speaker: I have two observations to make. First, I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the care which they took in presenting their case and for the way in which they put their submissions to my advisers and to myself.
I am not sure whether the second part of what the hon. Gentleman said is

a matter for me. As one of my predecessors said, if the Chair starts to give hon. Members guidance it may find itself in all sorts of trouble. I have nothing to add to my ruling, but I have noted that there are others present who no doubt heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

FUEL SUPPLIES

Mr. Cormaek: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the problems arising from the current shortage of fuel".
The events of last weekend have served to add still further to the acute concern felt throughout the country on this front. I believe that this makes it desirable that the latest information should be fully presented to and debated in the House. This is certainly an urgent matter. It is most certainly specific, and it is of overwhelming public importance. I therefore hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will feel able to grant my request.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice that he would make this application. I am afraid that the answer is "No".

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS (LAND) BILL

Ordered,
That the International Organisations (Land) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) to move his motion, I should inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.

3.55 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I beg to move,
That this House, appalled at the continued and unprecedented escalation in food prices, which bears most heavily on old age pensioners and others on low incomes, condemning the Government for failing to cut the rise in prices, at a stroke, but instead of allowing food prices to increase by 44·8 per cent. since June 1970, and, noting that many food items have been taxed through the imposition of tariffs and levies, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take immediate effective action to prevent further food price increases, including a demand that the EEC Council of Ministers agree forthwith to a fundamental alteration in the Common Agricultural Policy and to deferment of tariff increases due to take effect in 1974, to subsidies for certain basic and essential foods and price controls on a wide range of articles which affect the price of food; and at the same time welcomes the understanding between the Labour Party and the TUC on prices, believing that this offers the best hope of stabilising food prices and preventing hyper-inflation.
I chose this subject for debate because I was successful in drawing first place in the ballot on the same day that the latest increase in the food price index was announced. The figure so horrified me that I thought that it was time that a backbench Member brought forward the matter for debate. Food prices is the No. 1 topic of conversation wherever one goes—whether it be in the bus queue, in the food shops, on the factory floor or in the offices. Housewives everywhere are talking about this problem because it worries and concerns them and, indeed, helps week by week to bring down their standard of living.
There is no doubt that the latest announced increase in the price of food—44·8 per cent. since June 1970—has come as a great shock. There has been an increase of 3·3 per cent. in one month. But even now, as this debate starts in an atmosphere of gloom, it is out of date because, according to the latest figures published by the Grocer, the figure now is 47 per cent. above the June 1970 level. Since the beginning of stage 3, the index has increased by 2·4 per cent. At this rate, it will not be long before food prices

are 50 per cent. higher than they were in June 1970. To ordinary people that means in real terms that they now have to spend £3 on food for ever £2 they spent three years ago. That is a significant sum of money by any standards and there is no doubt that many people are suffering great hardship as a result.
It is tragic that the heaviest burden falls on people whose income is lowest and who are least able to bear it. The smaller the income, the larger the percentage of income which has to be spent on food. Thus, the pensioners, disabled people, and people on low incomes are worst off. It is they who have failed to benefit in any measure from the Government's taxation policies.
High food prices are increasing poverty. Last July, the Daily Mirror summed up the situation with three short words in a stark headline—"Hungry Britons Shock". That was not dreamed up by a sub-editor. The Daily Mirror, in its report, said that 1½ million lower-paid families were underfed. It took its information from two articles. One was based on the Treasury Economic Progress Report, which said that there were still people in Britain who did not get enough to eat. The Household Consumption Expenditure Survey reports that the group most likely to suffer from rising food prices is those with more than three children.
The Prime Minister said recently that pensioners were eating better than ever before. That may be his impression, but a survey by Age Concern in July showed that rising prices were forcing pensioners to eat less well. It found that their diet was boring and restricted and that many could no longer afford meat. Perhaps the Prime Minister has not met many pensioners lately. If he had they would surely have disabused his fancy and told him the facts. Indeed, statistics have clearly shown that the Prime Minister was mistaken.
I turn to the National Food Survey, which includes the pensioners' food consumption index. It reveals that between the second quarter of 1970 and the second quarter of 1973 pensioners ate 27 per cent. less meat, 15 per cent. less butter, but 8 per cent. more potatoes and 9 per cent. more margarine. Those figures show that pensioners are not getting the protein


foods that they need. But, of course, the Prime Minister is given to making statements of fancy which are quickly belied by the facts of the situation.
We all remember the right hon. Gentleman's much-quoted speech to Leicester housewives. To convince them, and housewives throughout the country, he said that he would cut the rise in prices "at a stroke". That statement and its optimism were unqualified then. There was no mention that keeping the promise might be subject to extraneous matters like rising world prices. We heard nothing about that as he sought to convince the housewives of Leicester and of the country that if they voted for him he would cut the rise in prices "at a stroke". Just how false that promise would prove to be did not occur to most of us in our wildest nightmares. The 3s loaf forecast by the right hon. Gentleman if a Labour Government came to office is now just about with us under his administration, and many traditional foods have been priced off the ordinary family's table. For many the weekend joint is very much a thing of the past.
The enormity of some food price increases has to be seen to be believed. These increases were highlighted in an answer to a Question on 23rd November this year. It revealed that chuck beef was up 74·8 per cent.; brisket with bone up 99·5 per cent. since June 1970; loin of lamb up 65·4 per cent.; shoulder of lamb with bone up 55·8 per cent.; breast of lamb up 134·9 per cent.; cod fillets up 127 per cent.; herrings up 83·3 per cent.; eggs per dozen up 146·5 per cent. The figures show the enormity of the rise.
It is also interesting to note the higher prices that have occurred in high protein foods. What is more, if you listen to the figures, Mr. Speaker, you will see again that the highest price rise amongst those protein foods has been for the cheaper cuts of meat—just the very cuts which lower-income families have to buy to try to keep body and soul together. They are also the high protein foods that our miners need. We have heard much about the miners lately but these are the very foods they need to enable them to mine the coal to keep the economy going. They are the ones who need the roast beef of Old England and

the high protein foods, not the people pontificating throughout the week from golf courses in the south of England. I hope that the Government will make sure that those people are able to continue to pay for them.
As the housewives do their Christmas shopping and fork out 12½p to 15p per pound more for their turkeys—if they are lucky enough to afford them—as they pay out more for other Christmas fare—and I have some of the price increases here—they will, for example, have to pay 7p more for a 2 lb. Mrs. Peek's Christmas pudding. Brazil nuts will cost 20 per cent. more, from 7½p to 9p, and ground almonds will cost 50 per cent. more, with an 8 oz. packet rising from 40p to 59½p. It is such prices that people will pay this Christmas. As they pay they may well remember the pleasures of Christmas Past and contrast them favourably with the gloom of Christmas Present. The Prime Minister would do well to remember the awful warning given to Scrooge by the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come, for political death—unloved, unmourned—surely awaits him unless he mends his ways.
If the tide of inflation of the shopping baskets showed signs of ebbing we might see some hope for the future. But it does not. Indeed, the reverse is true. The increase in food prices this year has hit a new peak. Between October 1972 and October 1973 food prices increased by 18·7 per cent. against 8·9 per cent. between November 1971 and November 1972. The increase was 12·4 per cent. between November 1970 and November 1971 and only 7·9 per cent. between November 1969 and November 1970 when the Labour Government were in office.
To see what this percentage increase means in real terms to the housewife as she goes around to buy her shopping, it will be instructive to look at The Guardian Shopping Basket published on 30th November. The headline is:
"Up, up, goes the basket …".
Without detailing the increases in prices, the difference between what the housewife would have paid in October 1972 and what she has to pay now is £1·47, nearly 30 bob a week extra in a single year. No wonder housewives are at their wits' end to know how to make ends meet. The sad fact is that prices are escalating even more sharply since the Government's


prices and incomes policy, and, with each stage, the situation seems to grow far worse instead of better.
So much then for acting directly to cut the rise in prices "at a stroke". Far from doing that, the Government have pursued policies which were bound to cause prices to rocket, and all the way along they have remained complacent to a most irresponsible degree. Of course, the Prime Minister does have his apologists, but these are dwindling in number. One does not see quite so many on television and in the Press who are still prepared to support him. Nevertheless, there are still one or two, notably the present Leader of the House, that erstwhile and voluble Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. His verbal gems used to shower upon the Opposition like manna from Heaven. Some of us were sorry to see him go. On 29th June 1971 that right hon. Gentleman was saying of the "at a stroke" statement:
I do not think that they took that all that seriously. Housewives are far more sensible than that They knew perfectly well that we could not cut prices like that—at a stroke. Over a period of time the cost of food will decrease. Of that I am absolutely convinced.
The promised land has proved to be a mirage, and with each optimistic statement from the Government it pops further into the distance. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been transmogrified from Agricultural Minister to Leader of the House, regaled us with many other interesting statements during his tenure of office at the Ministry of Agriculture. In 1970 he was advising us to eat peaches. In 1971 he was telling housewives to shop around—with a pram and three kids. In June 1972 in the face of acute increases in beef prices he said:
I believe this to be a temporary situation and that within a few weeks we shall be seeing a different story."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June 1972; Vol. 838, c. 36.]
As we all know, that story turned out to be a horror tale indeed.
One of the right hon. Gentleman's most interesting statements was when he said in February 1972:
I have always believed that there is a sensible moderate price for food which people should be prepared to pay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February 1972; Vol. 838, c. 241.]
Since he left the Ministry of Agriculture the right hon. Gentleman has more or

less maintained a shamefaced and embarrassed silence on food prices. He has left it to "Stonewall Joe" to hold the baby.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Where is he?

Mr. Stoddart: He is not here today. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Leader of the House will break his vow of silence on food prices and tell us what he believe to be a "sensible moderate price for food." Whatever his opinion may be now, he is a member of an administration that has allowed prices to rise in a way that is unprecedented, certainly in peace time. Even during the period of the Korean War food prices did not rise to the extent that they have done in the past three years. During the period 1949–52 the total increase was 38·35 per cent. The highest annual figure, according to a Written Answer of 19th November 1973, was 15·1 per cent. between November 1950 and November 1951. Even after the enactment of the Corn Laws in 1815 the highest figure recorded over three years was 24·1 per cent.—between 1822 and 1825.
We can see that this escalation of food prices over which the Government have presided is unprecedented. It is amazing that this should have happened to an administration led by a man who three years ago was promising the people of the country—and they believed that promise; they trusted the man—that he would cut the rise in prices at a stroke. Instead of doing that he has broken that promise and prices have gone on rocketing as never before. But the Government, presiding as they do over this unprecedented inflation of the shopping basket, decline to shoulder any responsibility.
It is always the fault of someone else, never their fault. They are always finding some scapegoat. First of all it is the trade unionists, then it is someone else, and now they have another to absolve them of the responsibility—world prices. Many in this House, and the majority of the general public, believe that the terms of our entry to the European Economic Community have a great deal to do with rising food prices. We believe that the common agricultural policy, designed as it is to benefit the producer at the expense of the consumer, has had


a lot to do with the rapid rise in food prices, not only directly, through the imposition of tariffs and levies, but also indirectly.
Many of our traditional suppliers who hitherto provided food at relatively low and stable prices because they wished to cultivate a long-term market have now raised their prices—and we cannot blame them—to get as much gain as the can in the short period of the transitional arrangements. Furthermore, to protect themselves—and who can blame them—they are finding new outlets for their products. While it could be true that the levies and the tariffs had accounted for only 1 per cent. of the rise in food prices over the first six months that we were in the Common Market—and that is 2 per cent. a year—these other factors have had a much greater effect and will continue to do so as Britain is forced out of the world food market and is forced to rely on the artificially high prices in a rigged EEC market.
It is right to call, as I do in my motion, for a fundamental alteration in the CAP. I believe that a majority of the House would favour that. It would enable Britain to continue to import food from our traditional markets. I would favour allowing the entry of food which is better and more cheaply produced elsewhere to the whole of the EEC. It would benefit the Community, certainly this country.
We hear so much about the world prices argument. The Government are currently sheltering behind it. No one would deny that world prices have gone up. That is not the whole of the story. If it were one would have expected that all countries would be uniformly affected. This is by no means so. Let us look at some of the statistics from the ILO Bulletin of Labour Statistics and the United Nations monthly Bulletin of Statistics. From these it will be seen that the percentage increases in this country are much higher than those in other countries. For example, between September 1970 and September 1973 the percentage increase in Belgium was 17·8 per cent., in Denmark 33·8 per cent., in France 26 per cent., and in West Germany only 19·2 per cent. Ireland was rather high with 38·9 per cent., Norway 19 per cent. and the United Kingdom

41·1 per cent. We were ahead even of the United States, which had a percentage increase of only 28·1 per cent.
That in itself undermines the argument that the Government have been putting forward, that it is world prices only which are having such an enormous effect on Britain's food costs.
There are other factors, and the Government would do well to recognise them, accept them and tell people about them. The first factor is the continued devaluation of the, pound as a result of allowing it to float. It is absolutely useless for the Government to say that that is not an element in this situation. It is a relatively large one. I wish the Government would stop trying to bamboozle people, telling them that they have no responsibility at all for this rapid increase in food prices. They would do themselves a lot more good if they were honest with the public and told them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Then there is the Government's financial policy at home and abroad. Prices cannot be divorced from the Government's overall policy. The directions that the Government give and what they do with their internal finances have an effect on their external finances and on commodity prices. That happens in this way. The Government are borrowing this year £4,000 million more than they will get in. That is in some measure responsible for the devaluation of the pound and the reduction of confidence abroad. Furthermore, the Government have expanded demand and printed pound notes, which has resulted in the sucking in of imports and the disastrous balance of payments position. Again, this reduces confidence. A further factor is that at home and abroad people have lost confidence in paper money. Just as they turned to buying land and houses, they are turning to buy commodities, and that is pushing up the price of commodities. Therefore, the Government's own policies have had a direct effect on the world food market and have helped to push up world commodity prices.
I hope that the Government will no longer try to shelter behind the argument of world food prices, because it will not wash. I grant that there is an element of world food price escalation, but it is


not the full story. I wish that the Government would recognise that and tell people the truth.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: In searching for other than international explanations for the rise in world food prices the hon. Gentleman is looking at the domestic component of the British rise in prices. Does he believe that the nation's tendency to pay itself about 11 per cent. when in real terms it is producing about 3 per cent. may be an explanation?

Mr. Stoddart: I hoped that I had dealt with that argument. One of the problems of this nation is that it is paying the wrong people. It is not paying the people who actually produce the goods. The benefits are going not to those who earn money but those who make money. That is what is wrong with our society. It is an unjust society, and in those circumstances we shall not convince working people that they should put their shoulders to the wheel. They know that the faster the wheel goes round and the more they produce the more the surplus value will be creamed off by the makers of money who produce nothing.
What is the outlook for food prices? As far as I can see, it is pretty bleak. I have a host of newspaper cuttings predicting what will happen, of which I will select only two. The first prediction is by Sir John Stratton, who has been in the news recently for having had an increase in salary of £341 a week. His forecast is as follows:
Though prices may remain relatively stable for a while, the underlying trend in the longer term must be upwards, and the solution must lie in the ultimate acceptance by the housewife that more realistic prices for meat have come to stay.
According to Sir John Stratton, housewives had better look out.
The Guardian on Friday 30th November contained an article headed:
and soon the pie's the limit",
which reported that the price of pork pies, sausages and bacon will rise sharply next year as supplies are reduced. That is according to Mr. H. Newton-Clare, Chairman of the Meat Manufacturers' Association. He went on to say:
I shudder to think what shop prices will be this time next year, even if feed prices drop in the first few months of 1974.

So, even if world grain prices fall, the outlook is still bleak for the housewife.
I understand from people who should know that even if housewives take direct action by going on strike and boycotting the food shops it will do no good. I read in the Evening Standard of Monday 26th November that a butcher boycott would mean less meat and higher prices:
Housewives were given a warning today that a boycott of butchers would drive meat out of Britain and into shops on the Continent. It came from Mr. Colin Cullimore, general manager of one of Britain's biggest butchers.
Once again, dire warnings are given, and if housewives dare to protest too loudly the farmers will send the meat over to the Continent where they can get the price they want.
Added to that bleak outlook we shall also have to contend with further large increases in the price of freight. Fuel charges will rise, and that is bound to have an effect on prices. We have not heard about this yet; we shall perhaps hear about it before Christmas. The Minister may wish to comment on it if she intervenes.
What can the Government do? [HON. MEMBERS "Resign."] The sooner they resign the better I shall be pleased. Assuming that the Government intend to cling to office until the last moment, what can they do? They can do plenty if they have the will. To begin with, they can look at retail margins. I understand that they are based on percentages rather than cash margins. The Government could certainly institute price controls at retail level. We believe that this is possible and highly desirable. The Government should examine this possibility. The Government can also postpone the next round of import duty increases. But, first and foremost, they can adopt a policy of applying direct food subsidies on a wide range of essential foodstuffs.
That is the direct action that the Government should take. That is the sort of direct action that will help to cut the rise in prices at a stroke. That is the "stroke" we want from the Prime Minister. I realise that the Government so far have been adamant in their refusal to adopt this course of action, but, after all, one U-turn more in the succession of U-turns will not make much difference. It will be neither here nor there.
According to a leader supporting this course which appeared in the Observer of 8th July 1973 it seems that that would not upset Conservative dogma:
The prices that matter are those that affect the cost of living, and particularly the costs of basic foodstuffs, because these hit the poorest most. What can be done about them? Certain basic foodstuffs, like wheat and butter, should be subsidised "—
the Observer is not a Labour paper—
Some already are; so there is no sacrifice of Conservative dogma called for here … Across-the-board assistance of this kind goes, unnecessarily to rich and poor alike. And, of course, it all has to be paid for by increased taxation. But these drawbacks, while not exactly academic, are comparatively trivial beside the urgency of containing inflation. People are not going to eat all that much more of a few selected foodstuffs merely because their prices are stabilised.
The Government, without any sacrifice of dogma, can take this direct action by subsidising food prices. This would do more than anything to help to stabilise or cut down price rises and to counter the inflationary situation which now faces us.
I know that many of my hon. Friends—and, I hope, one or two Conservative Members—want to take part in this debate, so I shall keep my remaining remarks brief. I conclude by saying that, when I examined the evidence on which this indictment of Government policy was based, it was difficult to sift out the evidence I needed from the mass of evidence available. There is a huge mass of evidence to support the indictment against the Government, and there are hon. Members present—many perhaps more qualified than I to speak on this subject—who will support that indictment. Today's Guardian sums up the situation in the following way:
Cost of living could be up 9 per cent. by May".
That headline is based on the Government's own forecasts. The Guardian article rightly says that if this increase happens, a coach and horses will be driven through the Government's prices and incomes policy. But more than that will happen, because the whole edifice of our society will be in danger. There is a point beyond which people will no longer put up with price rises; hyper-inflation will be with us. We are now on the threshold of hyper-inflation. If that

happens, we are all aware of the dangers to our institutions and our political life. In such circumstances food riots cannot be ruled out.
Therefore, I implore the Government to take note of this debate and take in what I have said, and what other hon. Members will say after me, about directly subsidising food prices. I regard food subsidies as the No. 1 food priority, because over the next few months, in view of the oil shortage, incomes will fall—and they will fall at a time when prices are still rising. That spells very big trouble. I implore, indeed I beg, the Government to take this matter seriously, to give our people a break and to save us from the ravages of the hyper-inflation to come.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Charles Morrison: In his concluding remarks the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) implored the Government to take food prices seriously. Purely by way of introduction, I assure him that everybody on the Conservative benches takes the matter of food prices with great seriousness and with no complacency whatever.
Other hon. Members in the House may be forgiven for assuming that this debate is becoming almost a Wiltshire affair. Since the hon. Member for Swindon is my nearest neighbour, I wish to start by congratulating him on being so lucky as to come out on top in the Private Members' ballot.
I give the hon. Gentleman full marks for consistency because he has said nothing today that has not been said on many occasions before. On the other hand, I give him no marks for originality, but some marks for accuracy since I suspect that most of the figures quoted at the beginning of his speech are just about accurate. However, it does not need the hon. Gentleman to tell people about the level of prices. Unfortunately, they already know the level of prices and are reminded of them only too often, and in many cases every day. But what they and the House must concern themselves with is the reason for the price increases and the question whether the Government are doing everything in their power to counteract those price increases and to cope with them. I believe that, broadly, they are doing so within the limitations imposed upon them. Therefore, on the basis of accuracy of


assessment of the criteria the hon. Gentleman has done very poorly and should get no marks at all.
The hon. Gentleman referred to world prices. They are the one simple overriding reason for price increases. Until recently the United Kingdom benefited from the existence of cheap world food supplies. But the era of cheap food has gone—at least for the present, and probably for some time in the future. Indeed it seems unlikely at this moment that cheap food will return. To corroborate the fact that there is no cheap food available, I turn to the October issue of a magazine entitled Land Worker, the Journal of the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. That publication states that:
… for most foodstuffs … world prices have gone sky high—well above EEC prices.
Additionally the Economist index shows how incredible has been the world food price increase. In August this year the food price increase was 706 per cent. above the figure for August 1972. The latest figure for December 1973 compared with the December 1972 figure shows a much lower increase of 37·1 per cent., but it is nevertheless a remarkable increase.
We must always remember that we in the United Kingdom import half of our food. Therefore, the impact of food price increases is bound to be considerable and totally beyond the control of the United Kingdom Government. When we couple food price increases with price increases in other commodities world wide, the situation is again beyond the control of the Government and is likely to become even worse since all manufactured and processed foods have within their price a large element of other costs.
The motion implies that inflation is the main cause of food price increases. Frankly, I think that this is nonsense. When the effect of higher import costs is discounted, Britain in recent months has had the slowest home-produced inflation of any OECD country. If the hon. Member for Swindon wishes to obtain corroboration of that statement, he can refer to the Economist of 17th November where he will find ample testimony to the success of the Government's anti-inflation policy.
It is also a regrettable fact that poor world harvests and growing demands for

higher quality foods throughout the world have forced up prices considerably. Let us take, as an example, the Soviet Union. Russia was at one time a grain exporter, but at present is a considerable importer. Let me give another example which shows how demand has increased. In 1959, Australia exported 324,000 tons of meat, including 213,000 tons to the United Kingdom, and only 1,200 tons to Japan. This year, 1973, Australian exports have risen to 823,000 tons, of which only 153,000 tons will come to the United Kingdom, while Japan will have increased her imports from 1,200 tons to 191,000 tons, and in that same period—1959 to 1973—the United States has increased her imports from Australia fourfold.
Against that kind of background—and we must appreciate that the effect of the oil shortage is unknown, and will remain so for some time—it was refreshing to hear the honest admission of the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) on the "World At One" on 23rd November, when she said:
I am bound to say that what the Government can do is very limited because one of the factors which no Government can change is that there has, of course, been a move towards a shortage of all sources of raw materials.
The hon. Lady went on to say:
But let me make it absolutely clear I do not pretend that I, or anybody else, have got a simple answer to the problem of rising prices.
The hon. Lady is an honest person, and that is the sort of comment that one would expect from her.
The motion refers to the imposition of tariffs and levies, to the need to defer tariff increases, and to the need for a reform of the CAP. First, it should be said again that tariffs and levies are part of the CAP which was accepted in principle by the Labour Party when it was in office. Secondly, world prices are so high that the effect of EEC tariffs is minimal, and sometimes has the effect of lowering prices—[Interruption.] Labour Members may not accept that statement, but it is true.
Butter prices are 30 per cent. lower for New Zealand supplies, and 25 per cent. lower for Danish supplies than they were at their peak 19 months ago. Imports of pork and bacon from outside the EEC now carry an import charge of about £25


to £35 a ton, compared with £50 to £70 a ton under the preaccession régime. We are able to buy French wheat at £15 per ton less than we would be able to buy it if we were outside the Community.
The hon. Member for Swindon said that we had had a much larger food price increase than in other countries, and he referred to a number of countries in the EEC. Percentagewise our food prices have increased more than theirs but that is because prices in those countries started at a higher level, as we were continually reminded when the Labour Party was opposing British entry into the Common Market.
What has happened is that we have had to suffer a larger rise to level up to world prices, compared with the rise that has been imposed in other countries of the EEC. That has been to their advantage, but it does not mean that our prices are now much higher than theirs. As a matter of fact, food price increases in the EEC have generally been less than in many other countries throughout the world outside the Community. The increase in the United Kingdom this year has been 6·6 per cent., compared with 16·1 per cent. in the United States.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the reform of the CAP, and his motion, too, makes reference to that. With no help whatsoever from the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at meetings of the Council of Ministers, and Conservative Members who are Members of the European Parliament, are striving for reform, and I have no doubt whatsoever that that will be achieved so that there will be a CAP that is better designed for the EEC of the Nine than it was for the EEC of the Six. Instead of their carping criticism, Labour Members might give some credit to my right hon. Friend for the initiative which he took last spring and which has already produced some proposals for a change.
The motion—and not surprisingly the hon. Gentleman dealt with this in his speech—refers to subsidies for certain basic and essential foods. The hon. Gentleman enumerated one or two items, but he did not say at what level the subsidy should be, nor did he instruct us on what the cost might be to the taxpayer. In short, the hon. Gentleman's

proposals for subsidies seem entirely open-ended and, to that extent, irresponsible.
Does not the hon. Gentleman know, for example, that to reduce food prices to last year's level would cost £1,400 million in subsidy?

Mr. David Stoddart: I do not think that I or anybody else has suggested that prices should be reduced to last year's level. What we are suggesting is that subsidies should be applied now to prevent prices from rocketing up at an even faster rate. That is the suggestion.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has made my point. He says that subsidies should be open-ended so as to ensure that prices will not continue to rise. Perhaps I may continue the point that I was making, because it is important that the House should be aware of the implications of food subsidies.
If it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman, or of the Opposition, to reduce prices to last year's level, what would that mean in terms of increased taxation? If there were a £1,400 million subsidy on food, it would mean the doubling of VAT and, at the same time, a 10p increase in income tax. It would mean that a man with two children and earning the average industrial wage would pay an extra £1·50 a week in taxation.

Mr. Harry Lamborn: The hon. Gentleman says that a working man would have to pay extra in tax. The position now is that because those on lower incomes spend a greater proportion of their incomes on food the less well off are paying more than the proportion envisaged by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman has not understood my point. I am saying that a man earning an average industrial wage would have to pay that much more. I am not talking about the chap who is paid less than the average industrial wage. The Opposition are advocating subsidies, which would involve higher taxation. Much of the extra money would come from people on average earnings, and some from those on lower-than-average earnings. In addition, a lot of the extra money would be used to subsidise those who have earnings way above the average earnings


level, because subsidies would be provided across the board and not limited to those on lower rates of pay.
On the other hand, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is no dogma in the Conservative Party in respect of food subsidies, as for example regarding milk. I strongly object to uncosted general requests for subsidy. The hon. Gentleman's question as to what the Government can do was much more relevant. The Government have done, and are doing, a great deal, first, through the abolition of purchase tax and selective employment tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I wonder whether Opposition Members have any memory at all. By the abolition of these two taxes, taxes on food have been cut by £225 million.
Secondly, the introduction by the Government of the annual increase in retirement pensions has ensured that pension increases have kept ahead of price increases. Thirdly, the family income supplement has assisted the lowest paid. Fourthly, the Price Commission, established by the Government, has estimated that it has saved consumers £320 million by rigorous scrutiny of applications for price increases. Fifthly, the Government's strategy on economic expansion has helped, though indirectly. Sixthly, the Government have done much to encourage home agricultural production. Since 1970 a combination of good weather, good farming and good Government policy for agriculture has produced a remarkable expansion in the industry. Currently the livestock sector—

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is massive discontent among farmers throughout the country regarding the price of animal feeding stuffs? In my constituency, which is predominantly industrial, farmers are up in arms about the Government's general policy towards them. How can the hon. Gentleman say that there is expansion in farming?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Lady has taken the words out of my mouth. I was coming precisely to that point. She might care to look at the figures published in the annual farm price review, and elsewhere, to see the overall expansion of production in agriculture.
The hon. Lady is right regarding the livestock sector. At present there is a trauma running through that sector of agriculture, arising from high feed prices. Undoubtedly this is, in the short term, reducing output of some products, particularly milk. I am, nevertheless, looking to the Government with a lot of optimism and I hope that they will restore my confidence. [Laughter.] The Opposition may scream with hysterical laughter, but the state of agriculture is not to be laughed at. It should be looked at seriously, and judgments should thereafter be made.
No doubt when the Government conclude the present farm review negotiations and discussions they will be able to announce the results which will restore confidence throughout the agricultural industry, particularly in the livestock sector.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: Would not what the Opposition suggest mean to some degree putting up prices to the consumer again?

Mr. Morrison: Not necessarily—it depends what particular action the Government propose whether prices of agricultural commodities increase. It could be that prices of some commodities will increase, but if agriculture at home does not expand it is more likely that there will be price increases purely and simply because there will be an even greater shortage than would otherwise be the case in some products, particularly in the livestock sector.
Short of sending hundreds of efficient British farmers to help remove the inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of agriculture in the Communist world—which is the cause of much of the current world food shortage—the Government have done, and are doing, most things in their power to counteract food price increases. I emphasise that no-one can be complacent about food prices and I suspect that there is no other subject to which the Government pay more attention. The motion does not stand up. Nothing which the hon. Gentleman said makes it stand up and, therefore, I hope that the House will reject it.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said that food prices


were totally outside the Government's control, but what has never been explained is that if that is so, why did the Prime Minister give a categorical promise that he would bring down food prices?

Mr. Morrison: I did not say that. The right hon. Gentleman will see from the record that I referred to world food prices.

Mr. Jay: That may be so. If it is so, and if world food prices have such an obvious effect on our prices, why did the Prime Minister give a promise to bring food prices down? That remains unanswered.
I extend my sympathy to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because it seems that there is not one of her ministerial colleagues willing to sit beside her and support her today in her difficult task. Can she first clearly explain what sort of control the Government are exercising over food prices at retail level? I also wish to follow up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) when he asked whether fixed percentage margins are being allowed to the distributive trades under stage three; or are fixed cash margins to be the rule? This is a rather technical point but it is more important than might be supposed.
I remember that in discussions some years ago about the effect of the Common Market on food prices in this country I always found some people a little slow to understand that if distributive margins remained as a fixed percentage, the effect on rising food prices here would be much greater than if it were a case of cash margins. It is a simple but curious arithmetical fact that if distributive and other margins are 50 per cent. of the final retail price—and I believe that they are something like this—a 100 per cent. rise in the import price with fixed cash margins will lead to only a 50 per cent. rise in the retail price; whereas with fixed percentage margins a similar rise in the import price will lead to a 100 per cent. rise at retail. Therefore while this may appear as a technical point, it has much to do with the present situation, and it may explain a lot of what

is happening. What is the Government's position under stage three?
As we heard, however, from the speech of the hon. Member for Devizes, the major cause of the trouble is not a matter of distributive margins in this country. The major causes of the high prices now being inflicted on the British public are the temporary rise in world grain prices and the Government's blanket acceptance of the common agricultural policy of the EEC.
It is no good Ministers denying that the Government are deliberately raising food prices, because the EEC settlement forced them to do so. Ministers have said this themselves. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said it in this House on 21st February; and as recently as 15th November the Prime Minister said in this House:
… in the longer term … we shall be moving up to Community prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November 1973; Vol. 864, c. 661.]
That is what is going on. Now that the Prime Minister has himself admitted this, I hope that lesser Ministers will no longer try to deny it.
The case against the Government is not that the rise of food prices is due wholly to their actions or their Common Market policies. In my judgment the case is really three-fold. First, at a time when world conditions would have pushed up food prices anyway, instead of doing their best to keep them down, as any sensible Government would have done, the present administration have gratuitously forced them up further by capitulating completely to the common agricultural policy. Secondly, they have pledged themselves to raising a whole series of food prices under the CAP still further over the next three or four years. I do not think that the hon. Lady will deny that. Thirdly, as world food prices fall, as some almost certainly will, grain especially, the gap between world prices and EEC prices will grow wider and wider. This means that the worst damage to this country is still to come, and that it will grow even greater if we continue to submit to the CAP.
Prices have been forced up already by the CAP further than they need have been. No one really believes the Government's propaganda that the CAP has added only 1 per cent. to food prices so


far, especially after Mr. George Thomson himself told us that it was five times as great. But perhaps not everyone has seen through the exact form of the deception on which this fable has been based.
These official estimates of 1 per cent. purport to measure only the technical consequences of the CAP since February 1973. But a very large part of the rises due to the CAP was felt before February 1973, both because the Government put into effect a number of food import taxes and increases in such taxes leading up to the date of accession, and because, as the hon. Member for Devizes admitted, our traditional low-cost suppliers such as Australia and New Zealand, when negotiations started two or three years ago, changed their policies in self-defence and began to switch their supplies elsewhere in anticipation. They cannot be blamed for that.
This Government imposed import duties on mutton, lamb and beef as far back as 1971 in anticipation of joining. Traders also naturally pushed up prices in expectation of the EEC higher prices which were already prevailing on the Continent. At the same time Australia and New Zealand, the most efficient producers of butter and cheese as well as of mutton and lamb in the world, were given notice more than two years ago that their butter and cheese would be virtually phased out of the United Kingdom market by 1977. Having for years treated the United Kingdom market as an assured and favoured market, and having pursued a deliberate long-term policy designed to keep prices low, they started to divert supplies elsewhere. That is the folly and tragedy of the situation that we face. And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, Australia and New Zealand, for the few remaining years in which they were allowed to have a market here, naturally let prices rise in order to do as well as they could.
Butter is already up 25 per cent. and cheese 75 per cent. since negotiations started, though naturally none of this is included in the Government's 1 per cent. since 1973. Even so, to give one example, we are at the moment paying 21p a pound for New Zealand butter, whereas the price that members of the Common Market have to pay if we buy from the Brussels butter mountain is almost double at 40p. If we were outside the EEC, like

the fortunate and now flourishing Norwegians, we could buy from the butter mountain as the Russians did, at 8p a pound compared with the official price of 40p.
There is a similar situation with imported lamb, where the rise is about 100 per cent. since negotiations started. This rise in price is in no way due to the world - price of feeding stuffs, because New Zealand lamb for practically the whole year t is fed on grass. The rise is due, first to the import duty already imposed to appease the EEC, and secondly to the fact that New Zealand was forced by our policy s to switch supplies elsewhere, and actually to put a tax on supplies sent to the; United Kingdom in order to speed up the; diversion elsewhere against her will.
The same is true of beef and bacon where, before entry, Ireland, Denmark, Poland and Argentina—and Australia in beef—competed in the United Kingdom as their main market and normally kept down prices. Now, as long as we are members of the EEC, the CAP imposes a floor price at an extremely high level, especially in the case of beef.
There is another major price-raising effect of Market membership which is not allowed for even in Mr. Thomson's 5 per cent. It is the effect of the devaluation of sterling. A major part of the rise in sterling food prices in 1973, which the Government call the rise in "world prices," and say is nothing to do with the EEC, is due, not to food factors at all, but to the 20 per cent. fall in the value of sterling since 1971. This is confirmed by the fact that in 1973 the industrial countries with strong currencies have shown the least rise in food prices. Compared with our rise of 15 per cent. between August and August, countries such as Norway, Switzerland and Sweden—

Mr. Roger White: Oh, come!

Mr. Jay: The hon. Member for Graves-end (Mr. Roger White) will find the figures in HANSARD for 9th November. In Norway the rise has been only 5·2 per cent. in the same period.
The fall in sterling has been due largely to the disastrous trade deficit, now of £900 million, incurred by this country with the EEC Six in the first 10 months of this year. Much of the rise in food


prices this year is due to the fall in the value of the pound, and that fall in turn is largely due to the enormous visible trade deficit that we have incurred with the EEC. And that part is not included in the 1 per cent., either.
If therefore we look at the total effect on food prices, direct and indirect, of EEC membership, and not just at the technical 1973 effect, there is no serious doubt that a substantial part of the 45 per cent.—now 47 per cent., I understand—increase in retail food prices since the negotiations began is due to Market membership and can be reversed only if we are wholly freed from the CAP.
In any case, how can Ministers maintain that the imposition of a battery of import taxes on food, and all the price raising and denaturing activities of the Intervention Board, have not raised prices? How can they have had no effect on prices? To give one or two examples, the import levy now on butter imports from our natural low-cost suppliers is £195 per ton. On cheese it is £328 per ton. These levies represent taxes of about 50 per cent. on the import price. Does that really have no effect on prices? If it does not and if, as the hon. Member for Devizes suggested, all these high prices are due to other factors which have come to stay, why do we have to impose these taxes? Why not remove them forthwith?
On beef, even at present famine prices, there is already an 8 per cent. duty on non-Commonwealth imports and 4 per cent. on Commonwealth supplies, both due before long to rise to 20 per cent. If beef prices fall only a fraction from the present peak levels a levy will be imposed in addition to the import duty. How can all that not affect the price? It is ridiculous to argue that.
On bacon, the levy is £35 a ton and canned ham, according to the latest figure, is £165 a ton.
On mutton and lamb the duty is already nearly £20 a ton and will be replaced in the coming year by an import duty of 8 per cent. which will rise before long to 20 per cent.
Indeed, the latter is only one example of the new or increased food import taxes to be imposed under the Import Duties (No. 8) Order which is to come

into effect on 1st January, although it has not yet been debated in this House. This will mean, in addition to the import levies, new or increased import duties on the main foodstuffs coming from our principal suppliers in the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand and others. These new or higher duties—the Minister can contradict me if I am wrong—will apply to meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruit, and even, apparently, tea from India, Bangladesh and Ceylon. I should like to know whether that is correct, as I thought we were previously assured that there would be no tax on tea from the Asian Commonwealth. If the hon. Lady can assure us about that we shall be extremely grateful. But that is not what the Import Duties Order appears to imply.
On top of all these levies and taxes the Intervention Board, on the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's own figures, has already this year spent £17 million on intervention buying and aids to private storage and a great deal more on denaturing wheat.
All these facts to date are only the beginning of the story. Our food prices, if we continue to accept an unreformed common agricultural policy, will rise far further over the next few years, with all the wrecking effect that is bound to have on the British economy. The price of butter, which now stands at a little over £400 a ton, has to go to £826 a ton over the next three years—more than double the present figure.
We are committed to all these high price targets if we remain members of the EEC. But, as world grain prices fall from their present record level, the damage to the United Kingdom from being forced to maintain the artificial EEC prices rather than take advantage of lower world prices will grow even greater.
It is surely madness to add this extra artificial burden of food import prices to our balance of payments, just when we are to be forced anyway to bear an immense burden from higher oil prices, whether we like it or not.
Let us consider the crucial case of wheat, where the prospect—I am sure even the hon. Member for Devizes will agree—is probably now for lower rather than higher world prices. Limits on


North American output have been removed altogether. The hon. Gentleman spoke of our assisting Communist countries to improve their agriculture. I expect he knows that out of Russia's total grain harvest this year of 215 million tons, actually 107 million tons is wheat—an all-time record, and more than double the United States wheat crop. So there are solid grounds for thinking that grain prices may come down. Yet the present EEC floor price for wheat is £49 to £54 a ton compared with a United Kingdom guaranteed price before entry of only £34 a ton—and the consumer often paid less. Similarly, the present EEC price of beef is 50 per cent. above the previous guaranteed price in this country.
All this means that if we continue to be bound by these policies we cannot take advantage of falling world prices in future. In addition, any further fall in the value of sterling will mean an automatic rise in food prices all round, which need never have been true and was not previously true in this country.
I would sum up the simple truth of this story as follows: that a large part of the 47 per cent. rise in food prices in the last three years in this country is due to the deliberate action of the Government in applying the common agricultural policy, with all its now visible consequences on the balance of payments and on the possibility of a rational incomes policy; that far greater increases are still to come if this policy continues; and that there is no tolerable way out other than a fundamental renegotiation or total abandonment of the CAP

5.16 p.m

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) who has indeed chosen an important subject for us to debate today. I shall follow his arguments, but he will not be surprised if I come to a different conclusion from that to which he came.
My hon. Friends and I put down what we thought was a reasoned amendment which would replace the myth of the motion as it now stands and put the reality of the situation, over which the hon. Gentleman glossed, about the diffi-

culties facing not only this country, but every nation of the world.
The trouble with the argument put forward by the hon. Gentleman is the same as the trouble with the whole of the Opposition's argument—namely, that they either misrepresent the situation for political ends, or, worse still, they do not understand it, and, not understanding it, they will have no hope, if they ever get the opportunity of holding office again, of correcting it.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman has accused hon. Members on this side of the House of either not knowing or misrepresenting the situation. Will he, with respect to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), tell me where he was either wrong on facts or sought to misrepresent the facts that he presented?

Mr. Kinsey: If I might be allowed to develop my speech the hon. Gentleman will hear where the Opposition went wrong. But he jumped in pretty quickly—the Opposition always jump in too quickly—without waiting for the explanation. The right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North went wrong when he told us that the industrial nations had done much better than we had. Japan is now second from the top of the list. That is one nation that is supposed not to be doing well. Canada, Australia and the United States are at the top of the list.

Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kinsey: No. I have already been taken off the course of my speech in the first few minutes. Obviously that is what hon. Gentleman opposite want to do. They want to detract away from the attack on their frivolous opposition to a serious situation.
This nation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) said, imports 50 per cent. of its food. This makes us far more vulnerable than any of the agricultural countries that have been mentioned. The bill that the nation has had to face for food imports since we took office in June 1970 has gone up by 77 per cent. This figure was given by the Minister in November. This is due to inescapable prices on the world market. At the same time, retail prices


went up by 44·8 per cent. in this country. These figures show that the Government have been doing quite well in maintaining the level of retail as against import prices.
Later figures which I have obtained from the Ministry today show an even more alarming situation. Over the last 12 months alone, from October to October, food import prices are up by a massive 50·9 per cent.—inescapable again. During this time retail prices in this country went up by only 18·7 per cent.—considerably less than half the food import bill. That is an absolute compliment to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the other Ministers in the Department for the way in which they have assisted in this direction.
In addition, we should thank the food manufacturers and the distributive trade for what they have done in absorbing so much of these costs. The Government's incomes policy has also helped to take the heat out of the massive increase in world prices. Quite clearly the competitive system does its work in this direction. Nor should we forget to thank the moderate men in the unions. They have co-operated through stage I and stage 2 of the incomes policy, and their restraint is reflected in these figures. Wages are an important element in costs, as we have often said in this House, but in the last 12 months or so they have been overshadowed by the increase in world food prices.
I suppose that with these rather dismaying figures that have been quoted, it is difficult to claim any success in our policies, but they really have been successful. The Economist of 17th November, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred, shows clearly that we are gaining, and that whereas in 1970, under a Socialist Government, we were top of the list of those suffering inflation the most, we have now changed our position to 14th in that list—14th out of 17. That article is headed:
The miracle that Ted pulled off and nobody saw him do it.
I assure hon. Members that we on this side of the House did not write that article. It refers to Britain as being "top of the pops", a situation which is hardly

recognisable compared with what the Opposition have said this afternoon. Britain wants the best people to handle this situation of food prices. The important question is: who will handle the situation better—the Socialists, or the Conservatives under whose régime our position in the inflation league came down to 14th?
What has caused the present situation and these high prices? Is it the Common Market? Are all those things to which the Socialists have referred responsible for the situation? In fact, it is shortages. That is supported by sources independent of the Government, such as the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation The Financial Times, reporting on its meeting in June of this year, said that world food stocks were
at their lowest level in 20 years; heavy snows and severe flooding in America … catastrophic drought in much of Africa …
all of which had contributed to the all-time world food shortage.
Obviously the answer to world shortages is to get a world expansion, and here is where I thought the Socialists might help. Instead, they have concentrated on a niggling attack on Government policy. The major problem is to improve the diminishing stock of food. We cannot do this by giving a diminishing return to the producer. That point was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) who wanted to know why our own producers were not given an adequate return. Although we have to reward people, we cannot improve food production by indiscriminate food subsidies. It simply will not work by giving subsidies to quarter-millionaires such as the Leader of the Opposition who has made a bit of money out of a book that he has written. He would get the same subsidy as an old-age pensioner. Who wants that situation? We must restrict any increase in subsidies; otherwise we increase the tax bill. We have seen this happen before.
Much criticism has been made of the Common Market agricultural policy, particularly in the speech of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North. Yet that policy is designed to increase the output of world food. It is the one thing which will improve the food supply position. I am no fanatical Common Market man,


but I should like to quote from the Daily Mail of Thursday, 20th September:
A bid to head off a world famine which one expert believes could kill up to 10 million people in a year opens in Rome …".
That referred to a meeting of representatives of the great exporting areas. It went on to say:
Soaring prices will effectively ration housewives in every major population area—except the Common Market, for the EEC's heavily criticised Common Agricultural Policy has suddenly begun to benefit the consumer instead of the farmer.
I am not satisfied with the working of the Common Market agricultural policy. This has been made clear. The Minister and hon. Members whom we have sent to Brussels have put forward our case. We want amendments to be made to the working of that policy. But we have to be there to do it. Which Socialist Members are in Brussels? What have they done to bring prices down? They are here, but they are not in the right place. They are here, carping at the Government—

Mr. David Stoddart: The hon. Gentleman is waxing very eloquent about what these chaps are doing in the Common Market parliament, but I have not noticed that they have done anything, nor do I know that there is anything that they can do. Will the hon. Gentleman say what powers they have?

Mr. Kinsey: The hon. Gentleman's interpretation of what people can do differs from mine. I have every faith in my hon. Friends and in what they have done for our protection. Their powers are as great as anybody's. It is our job to be there to do it. One cannot do it by stopping at home.
Another way in which the Government have worked successfully and had an impact on prices is in the level of taxation. We have done exactly what we told the nation we would do. We have kept our promise. Personal taxes are down, SET is abolished, purchase tax has been replaced by VAT, and the level of tax has been reduced at many points. The change over to VAT and the abolition of SET have saved the British taxpayer £900 million. No policy under the Socialist Government ever did that, and no policy which the Opposition now propose would do it. The removal of purchase tax on food alone has given

£2 per year per head to the British people. This is but another example to show the way the Government have worked and have carried out their promise. Prices were cut at a stroke.
Every hon. Member received a letter from Fine Fare announcing that after the abolition of SET prices would be cut. Dewhurst, the butchery firm, sent a letter to every hon. Member saying,
The abolition of SET enables Dewhurst to slash beef prices.
And so it did. This is the way things went. Food prices were cut at a stroke under this Government. When VAT came in, food prices were cut, because VAT was not levied on food whereas, under both Governments, purchase tax was charged on various food items.
Those are examples of the way in which the Government have worked successfully on prices. The savings on VAT were enormously helpful to the family. However, as we know, they have been overtaken by the escalation in world prices which, as I say, is unavoidable. But we did what we promised to do. We should never be mad enough to put those taxes back, should we? I say that, but we can be pretty sure of what would happen under the Socialists. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has already told us what their policy is—tax till it hurts. Anybody with an income of £3,000 a year or more will be taxed till it hurts. That would put about £3·50 per week on to each family in the country, which was just about the amount of taxation which the last Socialist Government imposed on the country—£3·50 a week, or a total of £3,000 million. That gives some idea of what we could suffer under another Socialist Government, with all the consequences for the nation's food bill.
One factor in the overseas context, which, I agree, is inescapable, is the devaluation of our currency. But the industrial unrest which is fomented by hon. Members opposite in their support for every wage claim which comes along is a factor which destroys confidence in Britain's economy, and that is where our currency comes under attack, leading to devaluation. The Opposition's peace formula, based on co-operation with the unions, would be an impossible deal, with unrestricted wages and restricted prices.


Such a proposal is economic madness, yet they dare to put it forward. There can be no substitute for voluntarily co-operation on prices between Government, workers and business. The success which we have attained so far proves that that policy is right.
Those who are threatening industrial unrest—the miners, the power men and the railway workers—should think again. I urge them to think again, to return to the policy which has been so helpful up to now, that is, co-operation with the Government. We are fighting a battle in this country now. What would our position have been in past battles if, for example, we had gone on strike at Dunkirk, or threatened industrial action at Waterloo?—which, incidentally, has a familiar ring about it.
It has been said more than once in the House that men cannot dig coal with bayonets. But not all enemies carry bayonets. The economic enemy is the enemy now, and it must be defeated. We can win only by production, and that is the Government's policy, to expand production. It should be supported by everyone. We can get out of our present difficulties only if we work together and fight together to beat inflation and bring prices down.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I felt some sympathy for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) because he manifested such a touching faith in his Prime Minister. He wanted to claim that his Government's policy had been a great success, yet he obviously could not think of any possible grounds on which he could sustain such a claim. In the end, of course, the hon. Gentleman failed to do it. Indeed, my impression is that if the Prime Minister now found that he could cut prices, he would have a stroke such would be his surprise.
The indictment against the Government is that they misled the country on food prices. No one doubts that world food prices have had an enormous effect on food prices in this country, yet the rise in those food prices was manifest when the Prime Minister made his claim, with an eye only on political considerations.
The truth is that this country is in a serious situation. For a long time, we were the beneficiaries of cheap food supplies from the rest of the world. In the historical context, one may argue about whether this was fair as between the developing countries and ourselves, but the fact remains that the statistics which have been used today in relation to other European countries and ourselves to show that the percentage rise has been greater here arise from the historical circumstances that in the past Britain had based its policy on cheap food. Our cheap food policy was an important element in Britain's industrial development and the industrial predominance which it enjoyed over many years, and when that policy came to be changed—a most significant historical event for us—the nation was ill prepared for it.
The Government, the Opposition and members of my own party have a good deal to answer for in not telling the country, and in not themselves sufficiently analysing the enormous changes which would come if we entered a dear food Community. I am one of those who believe that we should not have gone in at the time we did, for obvious reasons. Those reasons have been proved to be well founded, but I take no pleasure in that. All I say today is that, whatever one may think about it, if we withdrew from the Community now we should be in an even worse state.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was right to point to some of the factors in the Common Market negotiations. In passing, I must remind him that the relevant time was not two or three years ago. Negotiations took place in the days of his Government as well, so the period is much longer than that. Our traditional suppliers were already considering what they would do if Britain entered the Community. They were considering new markets and looking to the time when they would have to cope with a different situation if Britain joined the EEC.

Mr. Jay: I agree that the Labour Government's application did harm, but, to be strictly correct, it was an application and there were no actual negotiations.

Mr. Hooson: Technically, that is right, but it had the same effect. That is the


point I make. We must be realistic about it. It had a substantial effect upon our traditional suppliers over a period of time. All I am saying now is that, historically, the die is cast. We cannot go back to our traditional suppliers. It is most important, therefore, that we bring all possible power to bear to change the common agricultural policy. There can be no doubt about that. There are hon. Members on both sides, whether in favour of the Common Market or not, who do not support the common agricultural policy.
We must make a realistic assessment of whether world food prices are up temporarily or permanently. It seems to me that, over the past two or three years, certain unusual factors accounted for the rise in grain prices, in particular. I do not think that the same applies to beef, lamb or pork prices, although pork is much more linked with the price of grain than are the other meats.
The additional acreage brought into production in the United States and the improvement in the Russian harvest give cause for hopes that grain prices might drop. I estimate that it will not happen before 1975, however. I do not know what the effect of the fuel crisis will be. It could mean that we shall not enjoy the benefit of the lower grain prices. Let us assume, however, that, as in the normal course of events, grain prices were to fall. We would be in a ridiculous position if we were still tied to the common agricultural policy with its highly sustained grain prices.
I represent an agricultural livestock area. I know how many small livestock farmers and dairy fanners are struggling today. If there is one thing they hate it is Ministers quoting across-the-board figures for farmers' incomes—lumping the corn barons together with the livestock farmers in the western parts of the country. It must be in the overwhelming interests of the country to make serious modifications to the CAP and I further criticise the Government for pussyfooting in their attitude towards it. I am sure that all the pro-Marketeers will agree with my criticism that we have not been throwing our weight about in the Common Market as we should have done. The Common Market countries are certainly benefiting from having access to our markets and we therefore have considerable bargaining power.
I take the view that in the long term the balance of power is shifting, as I have forecast in almost every agriculture debate in which I have spoken, steadily in the direction of the primary producers. I think that certainly applies to agriculture and energy and probably to many other spheres also. What does that foretell for Britain, the EEC and the whole of the Western world? Except for those who are much more self-sustaining than we are, it represents a most serious situation which goes above party politics.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on his luck in winning the ballot and on the way in which he presented his motion. I criticise him in one respect, however—over the completely unnecessary last few lines of the motion relating to the Labour Party and the TUC which prevent my party voting for it. He said nothing about that aspect of the motion but it nevertheless excludes those who feel very much as he did from voting with him.
The Government are too sanguine about food prices. At the Liberal Party Assembly in September I said that I thought there would be a serious food shortage next spring with the possibility even of rationing for some goods. I was criticised then for taking such a pessimistic view. I believe now that the fuel crisis will add to those difficulties. Nearly every dairy fanner I have spoken to in my area believes there will be a shortage of milk in this country within a year or two. It will come much sooner than most people expect.
There is a great shortage of agricultural labour. I know of a man who is today selling his dairy herd at very short notice because he is unable to run his farm. In my area the farmers are not feeding cattle as they normally would because of the high price of feeding stuffs. The cattle are being kept in store condition and not in prime condition as would otherwise be the case. They will not come on to the market in the spring. Many more breeding sows and cows have been sent for slaughter in the last three or four months than at any other time in recent years. This is because of the uncertainty which faces particularly the smaller farmer over interest rates. They do not know what the future holds so they cut their losses and keep the minimum of stock. The Government should consider


what effect this will have for a country such as Britain which depends on imports for 50 per cent. of its food. The energy crisis means that we shall pay still higher prices for the food we import.
I forecast now that food prices will rise in the next five or six months much more than in the last two or three years. The Government were warned about this development months ago yet they remain completely sanguine in the face of it. They have completely underestimated the seriousness of the situation. I have never supported the CAP and if that policy is to be followed it will be better to pay subsidies to those who cannot afford to buy the food. We cannot have a sustained policy of subsidy for both producer and consumer and the best solution is to subsidise the consumer. That means ensuring that pensions, family allowances and so on must be geared to the new price rises.
I do not see why, as a temporary measure and in view of the unprecedented rises which face us, we should not introduce temporary subsidies of feeding stuffs to enable the supply of milk to be maintained. There should be subsidies, too, for various other commodities, and if the Government ignore the need for these measures they are heading for considerable trouble. The situation will get worse for another reason. I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North who said that one element in rising world food prices for which we are accountable is the money with which we buy the food—and that means the value of the pound. We have been compelled to export 20 per cent. more goods in order to buy the same amount of agricultural produce as a year ago. That is a serious situation which, with an energy crisis, will get much worse.
It gives me no pleasure to say it but I believe the country to be facing one of the most difficult periods in its history. In the debate today we have underplayed the problem that will face us over food. We are facing a situation of food shortage and we should be taking drastic steps now to deal with it. There is no sign of the Government being even remotely aware of the nature of that problem.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I, too, congratulate the hon.

Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) on his good fortune in winning the ballot and on the way in which he presented his case. He sang a familiar tune but he sang it nicely and the whole House listened to him with pleasure. He quickly glossed over the part in his motion dealing the pensioners and others suffering from high food prices. Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out how much the Government have done for pensioners and those on low incomes. The over-80s, whose increased pension the Labour Government rejected five times, were not mentioned by the hon. Member. The invalidity pension has been introduced by the present Government who have also increased the benefits for younger widows and have increased the advantages for those in disadvantaged positions.
Although the hon. Gentleman says that food prices have increased, the people who suffer most from such increases have been helped more by this Government than by the last Labour Government. Further, between April and August of this year the Price Commission, which is the creation of the present Government, saved the British food consumers £42 million by refusing to grant applications for increases in food prices. That is direct action by the Government related to the price of food. That is action which was never taken by the last Labour Government.
One factor always puzzles me when I hear Opposition hon. Members speaking about prices, and especially food prices. It is genuine puzzlement. If any Labour hon. Member can explain to me that I am wrong to be puzzled, I shall be delighted. Labour hon. Members take pride—and I support their pride—in agitating and working hard to ensure that workers overseas, and mostly in ex-colonial countries, have their way of life improved. They work hard, they agitate, they demonstrate and they march to support the case for workers in tropical countries to have a better standard of living. They are proud of doing so and I honour them for it.
However, when workers overseas get a higher standard of living, which means that they want more to eat and that they can afford to eat more meat, more protein and more of all the desirable foodstuffs, Labour hon. Members seem to be


astonished that world prices for foodstuffs go up.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the primary producers in the banana industry in the Caribbean receive only l½p per pound for fertiliser, machinery, land and labour whilst the British housewife is paying 10p a pound for bananas so that approximately 8½p remains with the shipper? The primary producer in the Windward Islands receives only l½p for the elements I have mentioned.

Mr. Fortescue: I am grateful for that statistic. I am sure that it is right. I was not aware of it. It does not in any way invalidate my point.

Miss Boothroyd: They are not receiving it.

Mr. Fortescue: The wages and standard of living of the primary producers should be improved. I agree entirely. Their wages should go up. They should receive the benefit of increased prices. That does not alter the fact that when their wages go up—I am not talking only about banana producers—and when wages increase throughout the world it is inevitable that not only the demand for primary foodstuffs will increase but also the price. Therefore, the prices of foodstuffs in this country will go up. Part of the reason for the increase in world prices is the campaign in which the Opposition have been indulging. They do not seem to understand simple cause and effect.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I accept the inevitability of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Will he give one example of a tropical food producing country which has produced a major increase in demand for temperate zone foodstuffs?

Mr. Fortescue: The hon. Gentleman is trying to beg the question. Let me assure him that I am not criticising his colleagues—indeed, in this respect I honour and respect them—for what they are seeking to do in many ex-colonial countries. I used to be in the Colonial Service. I worked in that service for a long time in a food and agricultural organisation. That has been my life.
It is inevitable, because the world food supply is not increasing as fast as the world's population, that increased demand

from people who are under-fed will lead to an increase in world prices. That must be so, but the Opposition will never recognise that fact.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that.

Mr. Fortescue: I cannot understand how the Opposition can indifferently and enthusiastically support every wage claim which is made. If a claim is for £10 extra they support it. If the claim is for £15 extra they still support it. The same would apply if the claim was for an extra £20. Whatever the unions claim, they support it. It seems that the Opposition have no judgment. They make no discrimination between large claims and small claims. If a claim is made they automatically support it.
At the same time they seem to fail to realise that if the cost of moving things by train goes up because the engine drivers' pay has gone up, the cost of food will go up. Of course it will. That cannot be avoided if we indiscriminately support every wage claim. If support is given to every wage claim, support is given to increasing the cost of living.
It would behove the Opposition, and especially the hon. Member for Swindon, who moved the motion, to take those matters into account when criticising the Government for the increase in the cost of food. By their actions during the 3½ years of this Parliament they have contributed as much as the Government have to increases in the price of food.
I take up what the hon. Member for Swindon said about the increases which have taken place in the cost of living. The hon. Gentleman took the period since the General Election. That is a fair political point to make, but I suggest that it would be fairer and more realistic to take the increase of the last year. A year ago we were not in the Common Market and prices had not begun to rise as fast as they have risen recently.
Yesterday the Observer published its Shopping Basket. It does so regularly. It takes the price of 34 different items of food. It has followed the prices of those items regularly for several years. Yesterday it indicated the increase between November 1972 and December 1973. The 34 articles in November 1972 cost as a total £9·85. They now cost £12·11. The Observer says—I have not checked the


figures—that that is an increase of 23 per cent. I agree that that is staggering and alarming. The interesting thing is that if we analyse the statistics—I am sure that everyone will agree that statistics must be considered closely and that immediate conclusions should not be drawn from them—and if we eliminate six items from the 34, we find that the increase during the past year has been only 67p instead of £2·26. On that basis the percentage increase is 7 per cent. instead of 23 per cent.
The items which I have arbitrarily eliminated for the purpose of my argument are beef, lamb, bacon, chicken, eggs and tinned salmon, which is obviously an imported foodstuff.

Mr. David Stoddart: They are all proteins.

Mr. Fortescue: It is a fact that the other 28 items in the Shopping Basket have either gone down in price or have remained comparatively stable. The fact that the total increase in a year for 28 items has been only 67p is completely ignored by all the commentators on the food situation. It is only when we analyse the figures that we realise how many items of food have gone down in price during the past year. There has not been a progression of price rises as indicated by the hon. Member for Swindon.
Another factor which emerges clearly from the statistics is that the retail price of all foods has gone up by 47 per cent. Since the General Election the price of manufactured food has gone up by only 29 per cent. During the last year the price of food has gone up by 17 per cent. and the price of manufactured food has gone up by only 6·9 per cent.
Therefore, it becomes more obvious, as one examines the situation, that price increases, both since the General Election and in the last year, have been almost entirely concentrated on fresh food and that food processed or manufactured in this country has increased in price very little. This factor must be recognised; it deserves the congratulations of the House to those who manufacture and process foods, who have contributed a great deal to the efforts to keep down prices. It is something we should not forget.
In the Government's counter-inflation policy, of which I am not an unreserved admirer, although I believe that some kind of policy was necessary, there is a weakness. I am informed—this is an example of the weakness and not the whole story—that those farmers in this country who grow peas, and whose peas will be harvested next year in the autumn, have signed contracts for next year's harvest with those who buy the peas for freezing or tinning providing for an increase of 40 per cent. above their price for this year.
I am told that the farmers are asking 40 per cent. more because, they say, the world price of cereals is high and they could easily grow cereals on their land and get the higher price. They say, therefore, that if these manufacturers or processors want them to grow peas, they will have to pay an extra 40 per cent., and if they do not pay it they will not get the peas.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that it was reported in the Farmers' Weekly last week that the current sale price is £42 a ton but that stuff not good enough for human consumption was sold at £67 a ton? Thus, some farmers got 67 per cent. more for their peas. As the Farmers' Weekly said:
What a mad, mad world this is

Mr. Fortescue: I will not go as far as that, but I was not particularly emphasising that it was a very sane world when, in one year, the price of peas could increase in the contract by 40 per cent. The man who has to buy at a price 40 per cent. above this year's price has his margin strictly controlled under the Price Commission's rules. He cannot increase his prices by any more than a very limited amount, in which all sorts of his costs may not be included. Then he passes his frozen peas or tinned peas to the distributor, and the distributor's margin is calculated in percentage terms. He is all right because he can charge the same percentage on the increased prices and so increase his margin automatically.
Therefore, the manufacturer and processor are squeezed between the farmer, who can charge what he likes in the contract, and the distributor, who is allowed to charge more on a percentage


basis. The manufacturer and the processor are caught in the middle in the terms of the price code. I ask my hon. Friend to look at this. It is an unfair anomoly. The farmers are being treated far too easily under the prices policy, and the distributors are being allowed to get away with very larger profit margins, while the manufacturers and processors are being squeezed.
I want to turn now to the question of food prices in the EEC. We have heard of the horrors which go on in Europe and of the increase in prices we have to suffer because of them. We have heard again the anti-Common Market sentiments of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which we have heard many times before. We hear him with respect because we respect him, but we do not now take his sentiments so seriously.
In dairy products, the price of butter in the shops is now 20 per cent. less than it was in January last year, when we were not members of the EEC. Practically every other dairy product is approximately the same price in the shops today as in January 1972. In the meantime, we have joined the EEC and have been cut off, as we have heard, so dramatically from the southern hemisphere. Yet prices have stayed level for most dairy products and have actually gone down for butter by 20 per cent. How, therefore, can the right hon. Gentleman say that British membership of the EEC has been so disastrous for the housewife? He mentioned all the prices which have gone up because he opposes the Common Market, but he did not mention the prices which have gone down.
The right hon. Gentleman and others have mentioned that in the last year the £ sterling has been devalued and that when the £ sterling is devalued the price of imported goods goes up. That is the natural consequence of devaluation. Yet the price of imported butter has gone down and the price of imported cheese has stayed about the same. The reason is that the monetary compensation mechanism operated by the Common Market countries in Brussels by the Commission has compensated us for the loss in the value of sterling, so that there has been no increase in the price of most dairy products, and butter has actually gone down in price. If any anti-Marketeer wants to attack me on these

figures, he is welcome to do so, but these are the facts and they are not emphasised often enough. Prices have gone down for some commodities because of our entry into Europe.
I turn now to the question of revision of the common agricultural policy. The Government's view of this seems to be like the view of the parson who is against sin. They think that the policy should be revised, but they are very chary of telling anyone at all, let alone the House, how they think it should be done. They think, and no-one disagrees, that the cost of the policy should be reduced. We all agree. No-one could quarrel with that view. They say that the effects of revision of the policy should be for the price of bulk commodities to be reduced. We, too, would like to see that. They say, finally, that they think the policy should be revised so that exceptionally large surpluses, such as we have seen for butter, should be eliminated. So do we all think.
What the Government have not told anyone yet is how in their opinion these desirable effects should be brought about. I believe, as has been said already, that hon. Members on both sides of the House, however fanatically pro-Europe they are—I count myself amongst that number—wish to see steps taken at an early date towards revision of the common agricultural policy. They want to see the British delegates banging the table in Brussels in order to get the policy revised. They want to see, sooner rather than later, detailed proposals from the Government as to how it could be done.

6.8. p.m.

Mrs. Doris Fisher: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) of putting down a frivolous motion. Going round my constituency, I do not find any frivolity amongst the women I have met while they have been doing the shopping. Some hon. Members opposite seem to think that the Opposition are seeing a kind of mirage of prices, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon said, the housewives were blamed by the Government originally and told to shop around. They did so but that did not solve the problem.
Then we had the accusation that housewives were buying convenience foods. I was not able to find what a convenience food was. Eventually I learned that such a food was ice cream or crisps, which the Government relieved of tax.
Then the trade unions were blamed because they asked for higher wages for their members. Workers' wages have been frozen and yet prices are still increasing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would solve the problem by dealing wtih selective employment tax and purchase tax. But prices continued to rise and still the Government were looking round for excuses. Then the Prime Minister came up with the best excuse of the lot—the weather. The British are absolute wizards at blaming the weather for certain eventualities. It seems that it is either the weather or computers which are to blame for everything.
At the beginning of this year's summer we had rain practically every day and the President of the National Farmers' Union appeared on television forecasting gloom about higher grain prices because of the wet weather. Then the sun came out and we did not see him any more. He did not say, "Now that the sun is out we shall get higher grain production." He supported the Government only when the weather was bad. The latest excuse is world prices. We must accept that world prices are to blame for some increased costs, but I am wondering what excuse the Government will give after Christmas for their failure to keep down the high cost of living.
The figures show that 1973 has been a bumper year for farmers. The Minister said in answer to a Question which I tabled,
Yields from the 1973 harvest are expected to be excellent …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 406.]
He said that the estimated yields showed a substantial increase, not only in England, but in Scotland and Northern Ireland. On the following day he gave the yields which he expected from the potato crop. He said:
The crop seems to be in good condition. … the indications are that the yield from the 1973 crop will probably show an increase of more than ½ ton per acre over that of 1972."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 474.]

British agriculture is one of the most efficient agriculture industries in the world, and the farmers and farm workers have accomplished this bumper harvest together. The indications are that there will be a large increase in farmers' incomes this year. I should have liked this prosperity to be shared. I should have liked the Government to show a little more sympathy for the farm workers' claim for a £25 a week basic wage. As hon. Members opposite have said, the farmers are doing very well out of the present food situation. Let us have a little more sympathy for the farm workers, for they are subsidising the farm industry.
An advertisement which used to appear on the media and on placards said, "Go to work on an egg". That was in the good old days of the Labour Government and before Leicester. The Prime Minister said at Leicester that under the Labour Government workers were forced to eat a smaller, cheaper egg. Now the workers are trying to find that cheaper egg. In Birmingham last weekend eggs were being sold at 50p a dozen. Their price has increased by 115 per cent. this year. I wonder whether the Ministry goes into the reasons for such substantial increases or merely takes the percentage increase in some other commodity and accepts it. It should conduct much more research into the reasons for substantial price increases.
The price of eggs used to fluctuate. There was a summer price and a winter price. I do not know whether the chickens have changed with the seasons or whether, because we have battery chickens, it is summer or winter all the time for them and therefore we have summer or winter prices all the time, but there seems to be no seasonal drop in the price of eggs as there used to be. Eggs are one of the main protein foods.
There has been a substantial increase in the price of bacon. In Birmingham last weekend gammon ham was being sold at 75p a pound. Bacon and eggs, which used to be a cheap source of protein for people on average incomes, have become luxury items. Bacon and eggs is no longer a breakfast; it is a main meal.
The hon. Member for Garston (Mr. Fortescue) quoted from the Observer, but he did not refer to the substantial increase in the price of fish fingers, which


is one of the products of the frozen food industry. The price of the articles in the list which he gave, which were not by any stretch of the imagination luxury articles, has risen by £2·26 in one year. Can we wonder that the workers are concerned about their decreasing standard of living? They are expected to bear the brunt of restraint in the freeze while others seem to be immune.
Rank-Hovis-McDougall, Britain's biggest baker, made a record profit in the year ended September. All the food manufacturers are making not just profits but record profits. In the year to September Rank - Hovis - McDougall, which makes Mother's Pride, made a record profit of over £27 million—an increase of more than £4 million on the previous year. FMC, the meat marketing group, increased its profit by 50 per cent. Its profit was more than £3 million larger than the profit it made the previous year. The workers cannot make anywhere near these profits. Yet they are expected to bear the brunt, while these companies get away with it.

Mr. Fortescue: Will the hon. Lady say how much of the Rank-Hovis-McDougall profit was due to operations in this country and how much was due to overseas operations? The profits which she has quoted are up to September this year. Does she agree that the figures for the year to come and the year after that, when they have been subjected to the operations of the Price Commission, will tell a very different story?

Mrs. Fisher: We can all tell different stories to suit different pictures. These are figures for this year. It does not make any difference whether the profits are made in this country or elsewhere. The profits made by Rank-Hovis-McDougall were made in this country. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston shakes his head but I have a quotation here supporting my view. We say that the Government have failed to keep a strict control of essential foods. They have actively encouraged people to make a quick buck. We have seen property and land developers all making maximum profits. Cost of land obviously has a direct effect on the cost of food.
When the Government appointed the Price Commission we knew that it was

a political gimmick. People were told to telephone in their complaints to the commission if they had problems. Obviously, the commission got too publicity-conscious. The Government decided, after the Tory Party conference—when the Tory housewives probably told them that the Price Commission was not good politically—that the commission would not publish the increases.
The housewife does not need to have price increases brought to her attention by the commission because when she shops at her supermarket she knows the prices—they are stamped on every packet and tin. She is reminded of the prices when she puts the articles into her pantry or refrigerator and when she takes them out.
People do regard the Price Commission as a gimmick. I received a letter last week from a constituent complaining about the price of Findus plaice portions which have gone up from 21p. She buys them regularly and she wrote to the Price Commission which said it was looking into the matter. After 10 weeks my constituent reminded the Commission that she had not had a reply. The commission said that it was difficult to contact London. If that is the way that the commission works—and how a housewife can do nothing about her complaint—then it is a political gimmick.
I do not wish to deal at any length with the Common Market. Some of my hon. Friends are much more capable than I to do that. But Common Market policy means that the consumer can never win. The system encourages food gluts which are bought up by intervention boards to create artificial shortages and to keep prices up. The common agricultural policy was never a policy to protect the consumer, and we have the ridiculous situation of paying more in import levies and taxes to the CAP. That keeps food dearer than we paid under the deficiency payments which were aimed at keeping food cheap.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Lady forgive me? It is hoped that Front Bench speakers from her side of the House will catch my eye at twenty five minutes past the hour and that gives her another two minutes.

Mrs. Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be exactly two minutes. The Opposition feel that this has not been a frivolous debate or that it was a frivolous motion. I sincerely believe that in 1970 the housewife was conned. She was cheated by the Prime Minister. But because the Prime Minister has not acquired marital status and does not have any personal knowledge of how a female reacts when she is spurned, the sooner she has an opportunity to show the Prime Minister at the next General Election that reaction the sooner will he realise that the housewife is aware that she has been cheated and that she will use her vote to make sure that that anger is on the record.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) is one of the ladies who were not conned in 1970. Her judgment is as good today as it was then. I am delighted to speak immediately after her.
The whole country feels that the Government have shown—I do not wish to be unkind—a lack of understanding and unwillingness to take any positive steps on the food issue. From talking to constituents and people throughout the country the Opposition get the feeling that the food question is the most serious problem. Despite their efforts, the general feeling is that the Government have failed to grasp the nettle. I hope that today the Minister will give us some encouragement. That is the spirit in which we approach the debate.
The House and the country are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) for his choice of topic. It is a subject worthy of a debate longer than the three hours at our disposal, but we must be thankful for small mercies. My hon. Friend's speech was full of cogent arguments. It was an accurate assessment of the situation, with positive suggestions which set the tone of the debate on a matter on which the vast majority of people would disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) who claimed that the Government's food policy was a success. We respect and listen to minorities, but I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as do the vast majority of people.
We want to try to help the Government by making positive suggestions. I start with a minor point about packaging. In studying the horticulture industry recently I noticed a suggestion that much of this year's excellent apple crop would not reach the market, due to a packaging shortage. I have raised the problem with the Minister before and should like him again to study its wider implications. Retailers tell me that they are not able to get packaging and paper bags, and that when they can they cost twice as much as last year. According to a figure I have, the fruit people last year estimated that half a penny on a pound weight was the cost of parcelling. If the price is now doubling it means an addition of 1p per pound weight on prices, due to packaging. That may not appear much, but to old people concerned with every copper it is a vital matter. The Government would do well to examine it.
Many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite have referred to world prices. Everyone has agreed about the increases, and that the situation has made it difficult for the Government. What we find difficult to forgive the Government for is that in 1970, when they were talking in the election campaign, they did not refer to world prices. It is not good enough to take that line. We find it particularly difficult to accept that as an excuse while the Government seem to be intent on washing their hands of responsibility. They say, "We cannot do anything about world prices," but we know that the Government have been responsible for devaluing our currency by approximately 20 per cent. over the past two years, which, for a country which imports 50 per cent. of its food products, is a most serious matter. It means 20p on every pound we spend on food, and that is a direct result of the Government's economic policies, which are disastrous.
I call it devaluation by stealth. It has not been followed up by the necessary political and economic decisions and it has made the problems of controlling prices much more difficult. We hear a lot about world prices, but these do not apply when we consider such things as Iamb. Why should the price of lamb have gone up as much as it has? My right hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay) spoke of New Zealand lamb, fattened, fed and grazed for


10 months of the year. That is not affected by world prices. The same is true of cheese. I understand that there is a tax of over £350 per ton upon all cheese entering this country. That has nothing to do with world prices; It is the result of the Government's policy.
We are eating less beef, bacon, cheese and almost every high-protein product than we did three years ago. The Government must examine the reasons for this and find out where so much of our food is going. I have discovered that there are 34,000 tons of beef in store compared with 15,000 at the same time last year. Why?
Many hon. Members have spoken about the effects of the Common Market. Apart from some Government supporters, no one now accepts as correct the Government's estimate of the increase in prices as a result of our entry into the Common Market. The claim that it is lp in the pound is beyond belief. Even George Thomson, the EEC Commissioner, speaking earlier this year—I do not know whether it was a slip—said that it was ½p in 10p, which is 5 per cent. I would have thought that to be rather on the low side, but it is perhaps more honest than the Government's figure. Food prices will get worse. As the years go by, until 1977 and 1978, we will find duties increasing.
We eat a great deal of tinned food. From 1st January there will be an increased import tax on tinned food. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) has done a great deal of work on this subject and has discovered that as from 1st January the tax will put an extra £1½ million upon tinned fruit, an extra £1½ million on corned beef and an extra £1 million on tinned salmon. All this means that the poor housewife will be paying extra when she goes shopping.
We want to put forward some positive suggestions. How the Government must have regretted axing the Prices and Incomes Board in their post-election euphoria. They had to put something in its place. They put up the Price Commission, which is unsatisfactory in that we are not able to debate it in detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood has said, the Commission is a laughing-stock among housewives. We have all received letters

from constituents saying that they have been unable to get satisfaction from it.
There is the feeling that the Government have misled the people, especially when they said that the commission would be able to consider fresh foods. There is a great deal of difference between considering fresh foods and taking positive action about their prices. This is one of the basic weaknesses of the commission. I hope the Minister can reassure us that she is prepared to make price control more effective. This is the key to the problem.
We warned the Government three years ago that the terms for entry to the EEC were unsatisfactory and unacceptable to the people. The Council of Ministers should not just tinker around with the common agricultural policy. We want a fundamental reform. Only in that way can the people of Britain get anything like a fair deal from Europe. Only then will there be any hope of getting reasonable food prices.
The livestock farmers have had a raw deal in the past few months. The increase in feeding stuffs has been about 70 per cent. The longer-term effect on British agriculture is much more serious. What is serious for the agriculture industry will, in turn, be serious for the consumer. We welcome the fact that the Government have brought the Price Review forward, but that is not enough. Their refusal to help dairy and livestock farmers generally will inevitably lead to higher prices. Even at this stage the Government should give far more to these farmers, who are the real victims of world food prices.
I turn now to subsidies. The Government have said that they are not against them. The Prime Minister told us this when singing the praises of the Milk Marketing Board. There is, therefore, no dogma problem. I realise that the Government will have to do a "U" turn. They have, however, removed subsidies from bacon and sugar and if they do a "U" turn on this I can promise them that they will not find us breathing down their necks.
We shall support the Government if they are prepared to introduce subsidies on the basic foodstuffs, of which there are about 11. These items weigh heavily in the budgets of those on lower incomes


and pensioners. They account for about 36 per cent. of all household food expenditure. If we include tinned foods the figure rises to about 40 per cent. This represents an expenditure of about £8,000 million per annum. If we wanted a reduction of 10 per cent. on those items it would cost the country approximately £350 million. That is a price worth paying. Hon. Gentlemen may ask where the money will come from. By coincidence, this figure is almost the same as the relief given to surtax payers, about which this Government boasted a short time ago. Let us try to help the ordinary person and not just the surtax payers.
I must ask the Government to examine the commodity market in London. I read the Adjournment debate on this with great interest. I do not think that this market has been thoroughly investigated. Even the governing body might welcome some discussions.
It seems that the Government were elected on a false prospectus. "Cheaper food for the housewife" was the cry, but what do the statistics show? The Observer speaks of an annual increase in prices of 23 per cent., while The Guardian says that the price of the goods in its basic shopping basket has increased by 25 per cent. in 12 months. The Hudders-field Daily Examiner last Friday reported
This is the blackest year by far in the six year history of the Examiner's food price service—the biggest quarterly increase of 6·6 per cent., running at an annual increase of 26·4 per cent.
So we are in a fairly narrow band of annual increase. On the Government's own figures—they are October figures, and out of date—there has been an increase of 44·8 per cent. since 1970, which represents an annual increase of nearly 19 per cent. On the Government's figures, food prices are doubling every five years, but according to all the newspapers the prices of basic foodstuffs are doubling every four years.
I end, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon, with the comment that it is not the credibility or the safety of the Government that we are worried about. With food prices possibly doubling every four years, we are worried about our democracy.

6.41 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) for having initiated this debate, even though I cannot congratulate him on the terms of his motion. We have had in this House many exchanges about food prices, and mini-debates at almost every Question Time, but this is the first occasion for some time on which we have been able to devote a larger debate to this subject. It is right that we should do so. Food prices are a matter which touch us all. I, as a housewife and a Minister, am doubly aware that this is the case, and I am, therefore, particularly glad to have the opportunity to reply to the various points which have been made this afternoon. If in the limited time I am unable to answer all the questions that have been raised I will write to hon. Members.
As the debate has shown, rising food prices concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. This is not something of which Opposition Members have a monopoly. It is sad that, as the motion shows only too well, they still fail to understand the realities of the situation.
The fact is that the world is facing an explosion of food commodity prices on a scale and to an extent unparalleled since the Korean war. We have seen two enormous countries which are normally able to satisfy their own cereal needs unexpectedly take off the market more than half the world's exportable surplus of wheat. We have seen countries which were formerly among our major suppliers of beef severely restrict their exports to meet their own growing demand—and we have spoken about rising living standards of producer countries and new buyers entering this world market in strength for the first time and increasing competition for the reduced supplies. We have seen crop failures for a number of tropical commodities such as dried fruit and cocoa, of which this country is among the world's largest single buyers. I have stood at the Box and said this often enough. We have seen changes in ocean currents decimate world fishmeal supplies, and the world's largest single exporter of another major source of protein—soya beans—ban all exports for a period earlier this year. We have seen increased competition for the


world's dwindling fish stocks result in considerably reduced landings.
This combination of natural disasters has struck in the short space of 18 months, at a time when there has been an unprecedented degree of movement in world exchange rates, often working against the £ sterling. The world food markets cannot survive shocks of this nature without showing signs of severe strain. These have inevitably been reflected in rising prices. In the last year world food commodity prices have risen by no less than 50 per cent. That is more than the rise over the whole of the previous 14 years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in Government had no experience of world inflationary pressures of this order, for while world food commodity prices have risen by no less than 77 per cent. in the three and a half years since we took office they went up by only 6 per cent. throughout the whole six years of the previous Labour Government.
There is no question of the Government having allowed food prices to increase. We in this country have to import half our food requirements, and we are, therefore, particularly vulnerable to external inflationary pressures. We have to pay the going rate on world markets or go without. Our experience over the last 18 months is by no means unique. Every major industrialised country in the world has suffered rising food prices of an order similar to our own. The most recent annual figures show that food prices in the United States have risen by 19 per cent., in Japan by 13 per cent. and in the nine countries of the European Economic Community by about 11 per cent. Those are the most recent annual figures. The adverse world food supply situation has hit rich and poor countries alike, States both large and small, and countries inside and outside the EEC equally. It is not a phenomenon peculiar to this country or to the Community, as some Opposition Members would like to think.

Mr. Jay: rose—

Mrs. Fenner: I am coming on to Community points. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me the limited time I have.
As I expected, a number of hon. Members have again tried to suggest that the common agricultural policy of the EEC

is to blame for the sharp rise in our food prices. I will explain once more why this view is wholly mistaken. Because we were able to negotiate a gradual transition to EEC farm prices over five years there was no large increase to be faced immediately we joined. The first formal step for each of the main commodities has now been taken but, for most products, this has had no effect on United Kingdom prices. This is simply because the Community prices for the majority of foods, including such important items as cereals and beef, have been below world prices. We have, therefore, continued to pay the going market rate, just as we would have done had we remained outside the Community.
For only a few foods has this first transitional step meant a change in our prices. In the dairy products sector it has meant some increases in the price of skimmed milk powder, and some cheeses have also been affected, but the only other significant items for which prices have risen as a result of the changes to bring our market arrangements into line with those of the EEC are sugar, pig-meat products and corned beef.
But—and this is an important fact which many hon. Members choose to overlook—there have been benefits, too. My hon. Friend referred to butter, and we are able to buy certain grains from other member States more cheaply than we could have done as a non-member. The system of monetary compensation referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) has moderated some of the effects of the floating of sterling, particularly for bacon and dairy products. The overall effect on food prices so far of our membership of the EEC is estimated at less than 1 per cent.
I want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) about Commissioner George Thomson's statement. Mr. Thomson has been reported as saying that out of every 10p increase in food prices ½p was due to EEC entry. At the time Mr. Thomson made his statement the increase in the food index, since January 1973, was 10 per cent., and 5 per cent. of that increase is ½ per cent. on the food index. That is completely consistent with the Government's estimate that the effect is less than 1 per cent. this year.
In the longer term we have always made abundantly clear that membership will mean a gradual rise in some food prices, but the extent of the increase should not be exaggerated. The Government's assessment is and remains that the increase in retail food prices resulting from our adoption of EEC marketing and support arrangements will be about 2 per cent. a year over a period of about six years. This is equivalent to only about ½p in the £ each year on the cost of living as a whole.
The hon. Gentleman's motion suggests that
many food items have been taxed through the imposition of tariffs….
I know that Opposition Members are concerned about the effect of Community tariffs on the price of food here, but we really must face the facts. No tariffs on food items have yet been imposed or increased under the common external tariff as a result of EEC entry. I must take this opportunity to put the effect on food prices into perspective. Only about half our total food, feed and drink imports are subject to tariffs, and duties are actually payable on a very much smaller proportion. For a substantial part even of this section of our food imports there will be no change in the tariff when we take the first move towards the common customs tariff on 1st January. Ireland, Denmark and the other EFTA countries will continue to have duty-free entry, as will those developing Commonwealth States which provide many of our needs for tropical foods, such as coffee, cocoa, spices, bananas and oilseeds. Our tariffs against the Six, which are sending us an increasing proportion of our food imports, will of course continue to decline.
Even where there is a move to the CCT, the changes will not always be upwards. For a number of imported foods such as oilseeds and oilcakes and dried fruit the movement will be downwards. In other cases—the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North referred to this point—such as tea, both tariffs are nil. In practice, therefore, the scope for price increases is limited to a few items like lamb and some canned fruits and fish, where the CCT is higher and where our supplies are obtained from developed countries.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mrs. Fenner: I cannot give way. I have only eight minutes left. This very limited price effect was fully taken into account in the Government's estimate to which I have already referred. It remains within 2 per cent. per year for six years. The part of this attributable to next January's move towards the CCT represents no more than between ¼ and ½ per cent. on the food index. That is only about one-tenth of 1 per cent. on the cost of living as a whole.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Lady mentioned tariffs, but does she deny that large import levies will be imposed on butter and cheese, and indeed that they are now in force, as a result of EEC entry?

Mrs. Fenner: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston pointed out, the price of butter has gone down, so the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is on a weak wicket. I have already said that the price of some cheeses has increased, but this limited price increase has been fully taken into account in the 2 per cent. figure per year.
The hon. Gentleman's motion also calls for immediate and fundamental alterations in the common agricultural policy. He must know that the Commission has recently presented to the Council of Ministers a report which reviews the CAP, that a preliminary discussion on it is to be held, and that the subject is being discussed by the Council today.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made the Government's position very clear on this question, both in the House and in discussions in the Council of Ministers. We have said that, in accordance with the obligations which we incurred when joining the Community, we accept the basic principles on which the policy is founded. Nevertheless, like most other member States, we recognise that the CAP has not been successful in fully achieving all the objectives the Community set for it. We should like to see the CAP developed for a number of reasons. We should like to reduce inflationary pressures; to improve the use of resources and get a better balance between supply and demand; to reduce the cost of support; and to ease international trading difficulties.
The Government are far from complacent about the speed and degree to which


food prices have risen. We recognise all too clearly the difficulties that this situation presents for food manufacturers and retailers. This is why we have taken action, wherever possible, to mitigate their effects. I shall not repeat those matters since many of my hon. Friends have mentioned them in the debate today, but there are a number of ways in which we have sought to mitigate the effect of world food commodity prices.

Mr. Alfred Morris: rose—

Mrs. Fenner: I must get on.
The hon. Member for Swindon referred to the Price Commission. A strict approach to prices is being maintained in stage three, which for prices began last month. The Price Commission is responsible for the implementation of those controls, and I should like to pay tribute to what it has achieved. The Commission estimated that in its first five months alone, as a result of its scrutiny of applications under the price code, it has saved consumers £320 million. The Government have taken action specifically tailored to the needs of the particular circumstances.
This is a merit which is conspicuously lacking in the Opposition's proposals, although the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) suggested some subsidies. I repeat that Conservatives have no dogmatic ideology contained in a set constitution with various clauses. Indeed it is difficult to pin down what the Opposition propose because each time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaks on this subject the cost of the proposals seems to go up and the coverage shrinks.

He has, however, always failed to explain how his party would ensure that their proposed subsidies would be fully reflected in retail prices without comprehensive controls over food markets. Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the £1,600 million that would have been required to subsidise food prices at the same level as they were at this time last year. That figure is equivalent to 7p in the pound or 23 per cent. on the standard rate of income tax.

The world market situation must continue to be dependent on the overall balance of supply and demand. We have sought to ensure during our period of office an increase in agricultural production over the whole range of activity, although we appreciate the temporary difficulties of the specialised dairy farmer. This is why my right hon. Friend has brought forward the preliminary discussions in respect of the annual review. The Government will continue to maintain our strict controls over prices and charges and will be ready to take further action, wherever appropriate, to stabilise food prices.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that the Government were not taking a proper account of the future in terms of world food prices. I believe that our actions show that we recognise the true facts of the situation. Certainly the Opposition's motion does not recognise the true facts. Therefore, I accordingly ask the House to reject the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 142, Noes 195.

Division No. 19.]
AYES
[6.58 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dalyell, Tarn
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davidson, Arthur
Golding, John


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Armstrong, Ernest
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Hamilton, William (File, W.)


Atkinson, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Hamling, William


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Bidwell, Sydney
Dormand, J. D.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Bishop, E. S.
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Booth, Albert
Driberg, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Duffy, A. E. P.
Horam, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Eadie, Alex
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Ewing, Harry
Huckfield, Leslie


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Faulds, Andrew
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)


Cohen, Stanley
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Michael
Hunter, Adam


Cronin, John
Ford, Ben
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilbert, Dr. John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)




Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Stallard, A. W.


Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Moyle, Roland
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Kaufman, Gerald
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Kerr, Russell
Oram, Bert
Strang, Gavin


Lamborn, Harry
Orbach, Maurice
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Latham, Arthur
Orme, Stanley
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Lestor, Miss Joan
Oswald, Thomas
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Lomas, Kenneth
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Tuck, Raphael


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pavitt, Laurie
Varley, Eric G.


McBride, Neil
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Wainwright, Edwin


McElhone, Frank
Pendry, Tom
Wallace, George


Mackenzie, Gregor
Perry, Ernest G.
Watkins, David


Mackie, John
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Mackintosh, John P.
Prescott, John
Whitehead, Phillip


McNamara, J. Kevin
Radice, Giles
Whitlock, William


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Marks, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Roper, John
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


Mendelson, John
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)



Mikardo, Ian
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Millan, Bruce
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Mr. James Wellbeloved and


Molloy, William
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Dennis Skinner


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Fookes, Miss Janet
Marten, Neil


Allason, James (Hamel Hempstead)
Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fowler, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Astor, John
Fry, Peter
Mawby, Ray


Atkins, Humphrey
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop. R. J.


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gibson-Watt, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Batsford, Brian
Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman


Bell, Ronald
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Benyon, W.
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Biffen, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector


Body, Richard
Grylls, Michael
Montgomery, Fergus


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gummer, J. Selwyn
More, Jasper


Bossom, Sir Clive
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Morrison, Charles


Bray, Ronald
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Mudd, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Onslow, Cranley


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Bryan, Sir Paul
Havers, Sir Michael
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hawkins, Paul
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)
Hayhoe, Barney
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Carlisle, Mark
Hicks, Robert
Parkinson, Cecil


Channon, Paul
Holland, Philip
Peel, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Churchill, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Cockeram, Eric
Jessel, Toby
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Coombs, Derek
Jopling, Michael
Raison, Timothy


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Cormack, Patrick
Kilfedder, James
Redmond, Robert


Critchley, Julian
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Crouch, David
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Crowder, F. P.
Kinsey, J. R.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Knox, David
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lamont, Norman
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid. Mal.-Gen. Jack
Lane, David
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Dixon, Piers
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'Field)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Drayson, Burnaby
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Rost, Peter


Dykes, Hugh
Loveridge, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Luce, R. N.
Sainsbury, Timothy


Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Emery, Peter
McCrindle, R. A.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)


Eyre, Reginald
McLaren, Martin
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McMaster, Stanley
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fidler, Michael
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurlce (Farnham)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Soref, Harold


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Spence, John


Fletcher Cooke, Charles
Madel, David
Sproat, lain







Stainton, Keith
Tilney, Sir John
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Stanbrook, Ivor
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sutcliffe, John
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tapsell, Peter
Walters, Dennis
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow. Cathcart)
Ward, Dame Irene
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Warren, Kenneth



Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tebbit, Norman
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis and


Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
White, Roger (Gravesend)
Mr. Marcus Fox.


Thompson Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Question accordingly negatived.

NEW PALACE YARD (LANDSCAPING)

7.8 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I beg to move,
That this House approves the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee in the last Session of Parliament on the Landscaping of New Palace Yard (HC Paper No. 424).
My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has asked me to tender his apologies to the House for being unable to attend the debate.
The Services Committee recommended that the entire yard should be paved with a uniform surface of granite setts, the centre area being separated from the roadway by bollards. It also considered that cars should be excluded from parking in New Palace Yard.
The Committee did not favour the proposal for a Tudor-style fountain about 50 ft. high and costing about £100,000 on the site of the original medieval and Tudor fountains. However, it did recommend that the necessary water services should be incorporated beneath the surface of the yard so that, if the House wished, a fountain or a simple pool could be constructed to mark its historic position.
The arguments are summarised in the Committee's report, which also contains an illustration of the recommended solution. This has, of course, also received the support of the Royal Fine Art Commission, the Greater London Council and Westminster City Council. I commend the Committee's solution to the House. The House will agree with the Committee that it is right to align the two ramps to the car park on an east-west axis rather than on a north-south one, and to exclude cars from parking in the yard.
Generally, the keynote of the favoured solution is simplicity. I am sure that the Committee is right in rejecting the suggestion that we should spend a relatively large sum of money on erecting a mock Tudor fountain and leave open the possibility of marking the historic position of the original fountain with either a modern one or a simple pool. In the meantime, it would be possible, if the House accepts the recommendation before it, to mark this position in the pattern of the setts.
If part of the original superstructure had been retained it might have been a different story, but, as the House knows, the remains which were located and excavated were all part of the substructure and it would not be appropriate to incorporate them in a modern fountain. These remains are, of course, now in the safe custody of the Department of the Environment's Ancient Monuments Inspectorate. Much of the foundation material used in the substructure has proved to be of great archaeological interest, consisting of nearly half a richly carved twelfth century marble fountain, about 5 ft. high and 12 ft. across. This fountain is believed to have been brought from Old Palace merely as hard core when the fountain in New Palace Yard was erected, probably late in the fourteenth century.
Much of the marble has deteriorated, and I am told it would not be possible to set up the remains out of doors. Consideration is being given to a suitable indoor site where it can be displayed when its restoration is complete—perhaps in one of the rooms in the Jewel Tower opposite the Victoria Tower.
Work on the interpretation and publication of the New Palace Yard car park excavation proceeds steadily. The fountain is currently being cleaned in the Vincent Street carver's shop under the most careful supervision, and results are


awaited from the various specialist bodies who are assisting in the laboratory analysis of material recovered in the course of the environmental study. This latter study, while less spectacular than the discovery of the fountain, is of fundamental importance to our understanding not only of the immediate environmental context of the Palace but of the changing behaviour of the lower reaches of the River Thames as a whole.
The House will wish to know when the car park will be ready for use and how long after that it will take to complete the landscaping. About a year ago we thought that the car park would be finished around mid-February 1974. Unfortunately, there have been delays, including a nine-week strike at the works of the lift builders and about a month on account of archaeological work. We now expect the work to be finished by the end of the Easter Recess.
Landscaping of the type proposed by the Services Committee will take about four months, and if the present recommendation is approved this could be carried out between the beginning of March and the end of June 1974.

Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear that the Government do not resent the fact that archaeology held back the work a little? May we have, in quantitative terms, precisely how many weeks of extra work arose because of the archaeology it involved?

Mr. Eyre: It would probably be difficult to quantify that precisely. When I mentioned the reasons for the delay, which all hon. Members will agree is moderate in all the circumstances, I was in no way complaining about the archaeological work. Like the hon. Gentleman, I regard it as being of great importance as well as of considerable interest.
The cost of landscaping is expected to be about £110,000, within a total revised estimate of £2·5 million for the car park as a whole.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: We are grateful that the debate, which will probably not be a long one, is taking place at a reasonable hour. When the motion was put down in October it was

on an evening when it may have gone to 3 o'clock in the morning. That would not be the way to treat matters affecting the House of Commons. Had the debate on the car park come up at a reasonable hour on 30th July 1971 the House might have had a better opportunity to judge whether that project, and the expenditure incurred was justified in all the circumstances. I regard the proposal now before the House as a smaller moonbeam in the larger lunacy.
What we are now considering is to be the top of a car park which will go down five storeys, and accommodate 500 to 600 cars for Members of Parliament and staffs of the House. The policy of building a car park in the Palace of Westminster was surely open to the strongest question at the time it was debated, yet the Services Committee made a proposal to the House, which was accepted with very little discussion late at night, which I much regret. However, it would not be in order now to hold an inquest on the car park proposals, the delays involved, how much or how little use is to be made of it, or how terrible it will be that more and more cars shall be brought into the centre of London. Nor, without the leave of the oil-producing countries, can we now discuss how many cars will be brought into the centre of London. These are important factors connected with the main project, but the landscaping is the matter now before the House.
Anyone outside the House who reads the report of this debate will probably wonder what on earth the House of Commons is doing talking about this matter this week. People will wonder whether we have got our priorities wrong, or are indifferent to the problems now besetting the nation. Does not the gloom of this place impress us with the gravity of the fuel situation? People will wonder whether we have taken leave of our senses because we are debating this matter at this time. Nevertheless, these are important matters from our point of view and we must give attention to them.
Any matter connected with the Palace of Westminster has to do with history. Tonight, we are being asked to approve the laying of a foundation stone of another phase in the history of the Palace of Westminster, and that is important. Millions of people come to see the Palace


of Westminster. The numbers of visitors are increasing. We see them every day when we are working here. They are also here when we are away. Overseas visitors come to look at this place, which they perhaps regard as the most stable institution in the world. They look at what we are doing to it and consider whether it fulfils their dreams and expectations of what the British Parliament should look like, and they consider whether we have tastefully dealt with various matters affecting the place.
I am pleased to be one of the sponsors of the scheme for the Churchill statue in Parliament Square. That matter impressed upon those concerned with it how important it was to consider the placing of a statue, how it would look in relation to the environment, and whether it would dwarf other statues in the square. We also realised how important was its siting, in regard to how it would impress the public, and we also had to consider whether the statue had a fresh challenge which was not present in some of the earlier statues of Churchill.
Matters of this sort involve choice and judgment, which are important, because what we are doing will probably last a long time. The choice before us seems to be between a garden and a courtyard. Many hon. Members may ask, "Why not get in a landscape gardener? Let him have a go and see what he makes of it." Again, I stress that when we are dealing with matters connected with this place we have to take the best advice we can. It will be seen from the report of the Services Committee that extensive advice has been taken from those quarters which this House respects and will wish to follow.
I believe that the original idea was that there should be lawns, presumably with trees, and possibly flower beds. Anyhow, it was to be decorative. Probably in the centre of London and in Westminster, the more lawns and flowers there are the better it will look. Nevertheless, in dealing with New Palace Yard we are dealing with a very ancient courtyard. It is a yard and not a garden. I see that the Committee was advised that New Palace Yard has been a courtyard since records were kept of the environs of this palace. The advice that we are given now is that it should be simple and traditional and

should reflect something of the gravamen of the Palace of Westminster.
One eventuality against which we must guard is the abuse by hon. Members of this courtyard when the new car park is completed. We all know the temptations. Members come in late on a three-line Whip and the bells are ringing. They want to rush in, stop their cars, jump out, leave them to the police to put away or get them out of other people's way, and run. Then, when other Members wish to leave they find their way blocked. We know from experience what a shambles it has been sometimes, when cars have been parked in all sorts of inconvenient places cheek by jowl and the police have been unable to check people's behaviour.
When it comes to behaviour we are no better than other people. We all do as people do everywhere else. If there is an opportunity to put our cars in spaces which look convenient to us, even if they block someone else's room, we stick them there. Hon. Members cannot claim any virtue in the way that they have used the courtyard up till now. When the car park is completed I hope that discipline, in terms of the use of the New Palace Yard, will be very strict. I shall not be affected because I do not bring a car into the yard or to London at all. I hope that what is proposed will achieve that object.
We are fortunate in having an illustration attached to the report of the Services Committee. We do not often get illustrated reports from that Committee. We see from it that there will be bollards. I hope that they will be unobtrusive and will not make the yard look like a kind of bull ring. I hope, too, that they will indicate clearly the way round to pick up and put down passengers, and show that the area is not a part of the car park.
Hon. Members have asked me a number of questions, which I hope will be dealt with during the course of the debate. The Minister has just told us that it is proposed to lay on water in the middle of the courtyard in case, later on, we wish to erect a mock Tudor fountain, re-erect the old Tudor fountain or, for that matter, do something else. The idea is to have water laid on. Perhaps that is a useful precaution, although I do not think that many hon. Members will wish to see that.
The other question being asked is whether, if in the end we decide to grass over the yard, it will be possible to do so without a great deal of additional expense. In other words, will it be possible to lay it on to what will be there already? I ask the question only because none of us has yet seen the final effect. The granite setts in the middle of the yard may look a bit empty and severe when we see them day by day. It is difficult to tell what it will look like and whether it will be useful for pedestrians. It is a little difficult to know what the centre will do, except be there. If we could be allowed a change of mind at some future date without in-curing a lot of expense I think that that would be a comfort to hon. Members, who feel that the last word on this may not have been said, looking to the fairly long distant future. Alter all, these are matters of judgment and taste, and of what one sees in opportunities of this kind.
That is the only real suggestion that I have to make. I do not think that anyone could advise the House to go against the recommendations of the Services Committee, especially as it has taken such sage, qualified advice on what it should do with the top of the car park. I deplore the fact that we are having to put a top on the car park. Nevertheless, that matter is not before the House at the moment, so I shall not go into that any further.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: We all welcome the fact that we are debating this matter at a civilised hour, but it is ironic that we should be allowed several hours for this debate when the original decision from which all this flows, that on the car park itself, was taken at a very late hour when few hon. Members realised or appreciated what was going on and when the decision was taken without much debate.
We are in something of a dilemma. I find these proposals quite unattractive, but I recognise that they flow from the original decision and that it is hard to upset the work done by the Services Committee and to delay matters even further.
I do not believe that the proposals do justice to what is an historic, important and very valuable site. They flow from the decision to spend £2·5 million on an

underground car park to cater for 500 cars—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Outrageous.

Mr. Moate: I regard that as an example of unnecessary indulgence which is exceeded only by the decision taken by about one-third of the Members of this House to construct a new parliamentary building—

Mr. Cormack: That is even more outrageous.

Mr. Moate: Prior to that decision, New Palace Yard performed a useful economic purpose as a car park for 220 cars. No one will call the motor car, individually or collectively, a thing of beauty. Nevertheless, a crowded car park at that time, the bustle of cars, and the additional activity of cars coming in up to Division time represented part of the modern Westminster scene. It was a useful car park. It was alive. Now, by contrast, we intend to make it a waste space and by contrast it appears sterile—

Mr. Cormack: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Moate: I prefer not to. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my hon. Friend will be able to catch your eye in due course.
The question is "At what cost are we leaving this space waste?" From the cost of the construction of the new car park we know that the average cost of a parking space is £5,000 per car. The site originally was a car park for 220 cars. Now the intention is to leave i; sterile at a cost of about £1,100,000. I find that very hard to justify.
As for the proposed layout of New Palace Yard, the intention is not landscaping, which is something of a misnomer, but paving it with a uniform surface of granite setts, the centre area being separated from the roadway by bollards. It is about the most dull and unimaginative scheme that could possibly have been produced.
Could we not use New Palace Yard for something more functional, recognising the economic value of the site and its important position? I do not pretend to know the answer to this question, but I should


have preferred more exploration of this possibility by the Services Committee.
First, there is the possibility of more car parking space. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) referred to the problems that sometimes arise at Division times when cars are left parked in odd positions. The right hon. Gentleman called it an abuse. Another way of looking at it is the necessity to provide car-parking space for last-minute arrivals. In the nature of things, many hon. Members find it difficult to get here until the last minute. For example, they might have speaking engagements in their constituencies. Anyway, there could be a large influx of vehicles at any given moment Therefore, it seems sensible to make car parking provision for such emergencies for a limited number of vehicles. It may be that even Ministers' cars will need space to park. Also, taxis come in and out frequently, so there could be a build-up of vehicles. Therefore, there may be more need for car-parking provision within the scheme for New Palace Yard.
Is it not possible for the site to be used for exhibition purposes—for example, archaeological displays of items discovered in London, whether in Westminster or not?
I believe that the site will be left sterile, dead and unattractive, whereas we could use it much more imaginatively.
It may be that we cannot use the site for a functional purpose, but let us accept that we want to make it attractive. Are we satisfied that this proposal offers the best solution to beautifying the site? I are not satisfied that it does, and I should like the Committee to think again.
I believe that the report disposes of alternative possibilities far too easily. For example, it says that grass-and-water schemes are incompatible with the tradition of New Palace Yard. I find that hard to believe, particularly when we see on the next page a reference to the Tudor fountain and its medieval predecessors. Did they not have water flowing through them? Therefore, a traditional feature of New Palace Yard has been a water scheme. I do not know whether a fountain or water scheme is the right solution, but I think that the committee disposed of grass and water somewhat glibly. The report does not make impressive reading.
I was pleased to hear from my hon. Friend that arrangements are to be made to display the remains of the old fountain in the Jewel Tower, but I think that it would have been better to find a way to display it on or near the original site. It would be better if it could be put in one corner of New Palace Yard rather than in the Jewel Tower.
The idea of reconstructing a mock Tudor fountain at a cost of £150,000 struck me as faintly ridiculous. I was surprised that the Services Committee felt that it could dispose of the argument about the fountain by putting in an Aunt Sally like that so that it could be knocked down.
I turn to the suggestion of putting the stones in one corner of New Palace Yard. I wonder whether my hon. Friend could explain one phenomenon that has occurred there. In the corner nearest to the tunnel to the underground station a large number of small granite blocks appeared recently. I thought that they were part of the future display arrangement for the fountain. They were beautifully arranged in a fan shape. A few weeks later they were taken up and then put down again some weeks afterwards, but this time they were embedded in the ground. They looked very attractive. I should be interested to know what present and future purposes they might serve.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. He saw a demonstration of what was intended. The stones were taken up because further works had to take place at that point. They were then put back again. I am glad that my hon. Friend saw them on both occasions.

Mr. Moate: I have seen them put back, but I have yet to learn what they are for.
I feel that the original decision was wrong. We are faced with a great dilemma to know how to proceed. We are creating a bad example to the general public regarding what we do with public funds. I regret that New Palace Yard will look the worse for what we propose. I wish that there were a chance for us to send the Committee back to reexamine the matter and to think again. If other hon. Members wish to pursue that line I will certainly join them.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I follow the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) only in that I also believe that a wrong decision was taken—taken in the wrong way at the wrong time in parliamentary terms—to build the car park which we are now topping and tailing in the debate.
I must say, if I can do so and still remain within the rules of order, that this is a fatuous debate. It seems absurd at a time of national crisis—the greatest economic crisis in my lifetime—to debate whether we should spend £100,000 on an imitation Tudor fountain in the centre of New Palace Yard which has had to be reconstructed as a new shrine and citadel for the motor car which we shall not be using much longer because of the economic crisis.
We all have to render to our constituents some accounting for the time that we spend here and for what we say in our debates. I do not relish going back and telling my constituents this coming weekend that the House of Commons spent as much time debating the fountain in New Palace Yard as it did on the problem of prices earlier. We are told that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. He played his fiddle perhaps for the amusement of the populace. We are deciding in this debate whether and where to play our fountains.
I want to refer to the whole question of what is to be done with New Palace Yard and to comment on the recommendations by the Services Committee, but without taking them as seriously as did the hon. Member for Faversham.
New Palace Yard is not a great thing of beauty at the moment. I did not recognise the idyllic picture of taxis coming in and going out, of hon. Members coming back from speaking engagements in their constituencies, and the hub of the Commonwealth and Empire being reflected at five minutes to ten o'clock as hon. Members arrive in their carriages, and so on, to take part in debates.
New Palace Yard is somewhat unimpressive at the moment. But I agree with the hon. Member for Faversham that it provided space for 220 cars and that, even at the height of the works which have been going on, it has seemed fairly

easy for most hon. Members who came in cars to find parking spaces when space was very restricted. If one could not get into New Palace Yard, one could park by the House of Lords or across the road in Broad Sanctuary. It therefore seems absurd, looking ahead 10 or 20 years when fewer people will be using motor cars in the city centre, to spend £2½ million on a five-storey car park for 600 motor cars. The motor car is being forced into retreat in our cities, and our policies will have to reflect that situation. Therefore, it is the height of absurdity to spend that money here.
I have one suggestion to make to the Minister. We should use part of New Palace Yard for recreation. No sport, with the exception of chess, has been practised in the Palace of Westminster since Tudor times when the fountain was constructed. I believe that tennis balls dating from the reign of Henry VIII were found in the beams of Westminster Hall when it was reconstructed. Clearly the game of royal tennis was played in Westminster Hall, probably to the better health of those who frequented the Palace, until at least the end of Tudor times. I suggest that we should put two tennis courts in the middle of New Palace Yard. Hon. Members would then not need to go as the pensioners of Westminster School tennis courts down the road to which we are allowed access once a week. We should attempt to keep ourselves fit by playing tennis, for example, and discover that there are more things for which one's right arm can be used than in other places of recreation in this building.
A cobbled surface to New Palace Yard is no great thing. I think that we should put it to some use. Hon. Members would do a good deal better keeping fit playing tennis all the year round, as they could, for an insignificant amount of expenditure by the Government at this stage rather than having this curious landscaped effect that simply pretends at the end of the day that there is not an enormous car park beneath.
I should like to know whether any assessment has been made by the Government, in the light of the changed economic situation that we now face—our changed expectations of oil consumption over the next 10 to 30 years—about the use of motor cars by hon. Members.


How many hon. Members will be coming into the Palace of Westminster in motor cars in 10 to 30 years? Are the estimates on which the Government are now working those which were put before the House briefly and unsatisfactorily when the decision to build the car park was first taken?
I do not believe that this is a very good use of parliamentary time. I dissent from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) at least in that. It does not seem to me that the time between seven and 10 o'clock at night should be used for this purpose. It seems the most absurd comment on current events since Louis XVI entered "Nothing" in his diary on the day of the storming of the Bastille.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sorry that hon. Members object to this time of day being used to discuss this matter, but it is precisely because of pressure by hon. Members that it is being debated at this time. Many hon. Members are prepared to discuss this matter at a late hour, and had more of them been present, as on a previous occasion, the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) would not be quite so cross as he is because we have a car park.
Some of us view that question with mixed feelings. If at some future time we find that we do not want a car park it can be put to all kinds of other uses. To have that amount of available space close to the functional part of the Palace of Westminster may be extremely useful at some future time. I am not suggesting that people should be buried underground there, but there are all kinds of pieces of machinery and other things which serve us in the Palace and which take up space, and it would be very useful to hon. Members and others who work here if those things could be put underground. Let no one say that this large amount of usable space is a complete waste, although it has been a pretty costly undertaking.
To get on to the subject of the debate and what this report is about, I am sorry that some hon. Members have misunderstood it. I do not entirely blame them for that; it is written in somewhat bald language, as indeed all Select Committee

reports tend to be. As hon. Members know, if one wants a case put in an elegant fashion, one Member should do it. I forget how many members of the Services Committee there are, but there seem to be an awful lot of them when I attend, and when they have to have their say we get something like the Shell building—rather dull and not particularly explicit. That is what has happened to this report. I do not think that any member of the Services Committee will disagree with me or be cross with me for saying that.
It is because the report does not do full justice to what is possible within the various options that are open to us that I can perhaps help the House a little. The idea is to provide a fitting setting to the historic parts of the Palace of Westminster which adjoin the yard and, indeed, historic Whitehall as a whole. The entrance to Westminster Hall and the space leading to the base of the Clock Tower is an important part of the setting of the Palace of Westminster.
We have been given a certain amount of historical background. This has been a yard since the beginning of British history. It was, therefore, felt by the Committee, with all the advice that was offered to it, that the appearance of a yard should be preserved. The idea was to get the surface of this yard covered with something that was attractive to look at, permanent and useful. Hon. Members may have their ideas about what should have been used. I think that most people would agree that tarmac would be a little dull and prosaic.

Mr. Michael English: It used to be mud.

Mr. Cooke: I am sure that is a very helpful suggestion. If hon. Members on the Labour benches suggest that it should be returned to a muddy area, that is up to them. Granite is a permanent material and yet reasonably flexible if laid in the form proposed, because one can take up parts of it if one wants to plant something, and one can alter the surface without much difficulty. This form of surface is referred to in the report as granite setts; I have heard it called pavé, a French term, and I hope hon. Members will not object to that. It is proposed to be laid in fan shapes, running into each other. This answers the point raised by my hon.


Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). If he had looked at the photograph with a magnifying glass—it is a badly reproduced photograph—he would have seen fan shaped groups of granite setts. If one looks closely at the photograph one can see this all over. I apologise for the photograph; it is not a good one, and it was reproduced badly. It was felt that that was a good way to carpet the whole of the available surface. By using the same material over the whole surface one gives a much greater idea of the spaciousness of the yard. It is not a very big yard, but it makes it look a good deal bigger and more impressive.
There is also the question of the differences of level. The yard is by no means a level place. It slopes in various directions. The use of an all-over carpet of granite seemed to be the most appropriate method. Those hon. Members who have studied the use of this material abroad will, I think, agree that it produces a usable and attractive surface.
Now I come to the small print in the report. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary indicated that a considerable number of options were open if we adopted the scheme as outlined in the report. It is possible to plant within the surface of the yard, in the central part which is surrounded by bollards in the photograph, a number of trees. These could be a kind of formal tree planting which one sees in town squares and cathedral squares on the Continent, an example of which we have near St. Paul's Cathedral—the use of lime trees trained to form a shaded walk round the centre of the square, or something of that kind. Many options are open here. It is perfectly easy by the use of such trees, to provide a shaded area in the middle of what might be a rather hot and dusty yard during the summer months. There is plenty of space for a considerable depth of soil in the centre of the yard. Hon. Members will see how the car park ramps have been constructed. Quite a number of schemes could be devised to hide them. As a result of to-day's debate, if there were strong enough feeling for the formalised use of trees there is no reason why they should not be planted when the yard is surfaced.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Can my hon. Friend give

any indication of the cost of completely surfacing the yard with granite setts or pavé? I think that not only would it be better to have a variety of surfaces, like water, granite setts and grass, but it might be considerably less expensive than surfacing the area with these expensive imported granite setts.

Mr. Cooke: It is up to the Minister to answer that question. I hope he will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. My hon. Friend and I are both devoted to the use of trees. My hon. Friend wants to see water and grass as well. I submit that it would be extremely difficult to keep grass looking decent in this locality. However, it might be worth trying, and I hope the Minister will address himself to that question.
As regards water, all options are open. The plumbing is to be put in, and that would not cost more than about £100 if I did it. If the Department does it, it will probably cost £500. All it needs is a drain pipe and a tap hidden beneath the surface, marking the site were the original fountain was, so that if we want a formal pool or something else at a later date, no expensive work will be required.
Hon. Members have referred to the Tudor fountain. It was a water feature in a sense, inasmuch as it had water inside it, but one could hardly see the water. The idea of the superstructure was to keep the tampering public away from the water lest it should become polluted. I think that hon. Members would like something a little more available than that, were we to go in for a water feature.
I should have liked to see one or two other versions or possible schemes included in the report, but we were told that there was not time, or that the only photograph available was this rather dreary one, which has come out rather poorly. It would have been possible to show what the yard would look like with formalised trees, and perhaps some grass in the middle, though I imagine the House would prefer to decide on something rather more durable.
There could certainly be some stone seats, permanently fixed, in the middle of the yard, shaded by trees, and this could make an area of considerable value to the House and those who serve us, and, for all I know, to the public as well. A


good deal more could be done to screen or obscure the ramps and the down slopes of the holes which the cars will have to use in gaining access to the car park.
I hope that I have said enough to show that the report could have done a good deal more to explain the options. But it is up to the House, with the report as a basis, to say what it wants. After all the fuss that has been made about having a debate at a businesslike time, in daylight, so to speak, it is rather depressing to find that hardly any hon. Members have turned up. But I hope that they will write in with their suggestions, and perhaps some illustrations, to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who, I am sure, will be most receptive.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: On both sides of the House there is a general feeling that we are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. All of us who were Members at the time are to blame. Whether or not the decision was taken late at night, I accept my share of responsibility and I acknowledge at once that it is scandalous that the House of Commons accepted the provision of car parking spaces—between 500 and 600, at £4,000 to £5,000 a time—in the middle of London when we ought to have been discouraging people from bringing in their cars, and when, as we know, we should be the first to discourage others, apart from ourselves, from bringing in their cars. However, perhaps we can rescue something from this unhappy situation if we can get one or two decisions right today.
I come at once to the question of alternative uses. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that if, at some future date, the House had any ideas for alternative uses for the space beneath the courtyard, it would be perfectly possible to fill it up with old bits of machinery which might be got out of the way of other parts of the Palace of Westminster. I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government have any more far-seeing thoughts about alternative uses for the space underneath the courtyard.
If we, as a House, were to make the fundamental decision to go back on what we earlier decided, and frankly said we did not want the car park anyway, the temptation, I suppose, would be to fill it

in, but that would be rather expensive. Are there any alternative uses apart from simply filling it with old bits of machinery?

Mr. Robert Cooke: Accidentally, I hope, but perhaps deliberately, the hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what I said. I did not go into the matter in detail, but I never suggested that it should be filled with old bits of machinery. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that there are masses of stuff—I say "stuff", and he knows what I mean—which gets in our way in this place and which could well be put in the underground space.

Mr. Pardoe: I was just coming to that. It will depend upon other decisions not yet reached, but it is possible that at some future date we shall build for ourselves an extremely luxurious palace, so to speak, with new offices. [An hon. Member: "Never".] It may well be that that will never happen. But I imagine that if we were faced today with the decision which we made about car parking spaces some time ago, most of us would say that if the money was to be spent at all it would be far better spent on building office space for Members to do a decent job in controlling the executive rather than on building car parks.
What studies has the Department done on genuine and valuable alternative uses for the space underneath the courtyard? Can the spaces be converted into working places? Are there uses which are now taking up space within the Palace which could be put into some of the floors beneath the surface of the yard? In other words, could we, for example, put underground offices in the car park? If there is no alternative use but the putting down there of bits of furniture and things that get in our way, that does not seem to me to be a particularly sensible use of the place.
I come now to the question of the yard itself. Where will the granite come from? I hope that we shall have a categorical assurance from the Government that it will come from quarries in the United Kingdom—preferably the granite quarry which has supplied the stone for the new London Bridge, that is, Hanter Gantick quarry in my constituency of North Cornwall. If the Government dare to place the order for granite away from Hanter


Gantick they will have some difficult questions to answer.

Mr. English: What about Scotland?

Mr. Pardoe: I am thinking of Cornish nationalism at the moment.
I come now to the question of trees. If we are to have a courtyard of this kind, the suggested use of trees seems very parsimonious. If we are to have them, we could have many more.
Next, what are the Government's ideas about the use of this courtyard not when the House is sitting but during the large part of the year—and especially during the tourist season in the summer—when the House is not using it? We are guilty of scandalous under-use of this building during the height of the tourist season. At the time of the Labour Government, I raised with the then Lord President the question whether we could use this place to a large extent—I do not mean the Chamber but Westminster Hall, some of the rooms in the House of Lords building, and so on—for a festival of Westminster.
What would the Government's attitude be, for instance, to using the courtyard during the Summer Recess for son et lumière, or as a sculpture park during the summer season? Would they tend to take the view that was taken by the then Lord President when I raised the matter, that it would somehow diminish the dignity of Parliament to use it for these purposes? I hope that we shall be given some idea about that. Obviously, it would not be in order for me to go into the general question now—

Mr. English: I was on the Services Committee at the time. It is unfair to say that it was a decision of the then Lord President. It was a collective decision of the Services Committee, and, as I recall it, a unanimous decision. It had nothing to do with the dignity of this place. We simply did not want to use it for a private profit-making commercial organisation.

Mr. Pardoe: I am much obliged. I accept that although the letter I received came from the Lord President it was not entirely his decision, but it represented the outcome of his discussions with the Services Committee. However, what I should like to know now is whether the

views of the House and the Government on the matter have changed. It is not a question of profit making. This place costs a great deal of money to run. The restaurants are highly subsidised. They could make a "bomb" if they were handled properly, and there is no reason why they should not be leased out to commercial concerns to manage in the summer, on a profit basis, perhaps, or, better still, be run by the Government's catering services or the House of Commons catering service.

Mr. Whitehead: I can understand the Liberal Party's concern with catering nowadays, but is the hon. Gentleman so pusillanimous in his outlook as to see us for the rest of time taking five months' holiday a year as a House of Commons? If we had one month's holiday and worked 11 months, as most other institutions do, he would not be prompted into these notions about what could be done during the recesses.

Mr. Pardoe: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that I have signed the motion which calls for an entirely different approach to the working hours of the House. I entirely agree with him, and ever since I came to this place in 1966 I have advocated a change in working hours. But we are not debating that now. We are debating what should be done with the courtyard which we have, having in mind the likelihood that next summer we shall be in recess from the beginning of August to the middle of October. What I want to know from the Government is whether they would be prepared to allow this courtyard to be used, and would encourage it to be used, for the sort of purposes that I have mentioned.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I suppose that a cynic might say that the best point of this Sixth Report of the Select Committee is that it is short. It is for that reason that it is one of the few reports that I have read completely. It is a little unfair for my right hon. Friend the Lord President to be pilloried for arranging this short debate, which I understand need not go on until 10 o'clock anyway, when he was pilloried for putting on late at night the main debate on the question whether we


should have an underground car park. I should have thought that it reflects not on him but on us all if we now decide that we never wanted an underground car park in the first place, for we were responsible for letting the proposal go through.
I suppose there will be as many suggestions for what we should do to the surface of New Palace Yard as there are hon. Members. It was perhaps for that reason that we asked the Committee to advise how the surface should be treated. My initial reaction was one of disappointment—if I may dare to say so—that it tended to consider three possible methods of treatment as if only one of the three could be chosen. In other words, we would have to plump for a grassed area with a roadway around it, a reflecting pool and fountain, or a uniform surface of granite setts. I should have thought that there was at least a fourth possibility, which consisted of two or of all three of these things. I recommend that it should be a combination of all three and I shall briefly explain why.
We must consider the area as whole. There is no doubt that Parliament Square is a formal area, albeit in the main grassed. There is therefore a case for a more informal treatment of this large area. The question remains how should it be treated if it is to be treated more informally. In a sense, the area will be broken up because of the need for a vehicular way around the courtyard, which I understand and recognise cannot be provided in four straight lines with ramps going down. There is also a good case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) admitted, for more trees to be provided, because in Parliament Square and New Palace Yard they soften the harshness of the surrounding buildings. I emphasise that aspect because we are concentrating on a national tree planting campaign this year.
I do not underestimate the importance of a pool area on a site such as this. The reflective qualities would be a great asset, since the site is surrounded on two sides by beautiful buildings which will be more beautiful when they are cleaned, as I hope they shortly will be. Therefore I ask the Services Committee to look closely at the possibility of providing a pool. It would be a waste of money to

spend £100,000 on recreating the Tudor fountain when the one provided would not be the original, but there might be a case for putting a more modest fountain in the pool. I agree with the decision to realign the two ramps on an east-west axis rather than on a north-south axis.
I would ask that the question of the granite setts be examined most carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) has much more expert knowledge than I on the costs of materials and I hope he will agree with me that a conservative estimate of the cost of granite setts would be about £25 a square yard. That in itself is a reason for having the pool and a grassed area at least on part of the site. I cannot remember from where I got the information, but I was under the impression that the most suitable setts—and I hasten to add I do not agree with this—that the Services Committee considered would have to be imported. I am all "in favour of getting the best possible surface treatment but I should be grateful for any information that my hon. Friend the Minister can give on that point.
If there is a reason for having the underground car park other than for the provision of car parking space for hon. Members and staff, it is surely the environmental consideration that we should be clearing away the clutter and paraphernalia of vehicles which hitherto existed on the surface. I should therefore be very much in favour of prohibiting cars from parking on the surface—all the more so because we shall have spent £2½ million on the scheme. For that environmental reason I support the underground car park, although I agree it is too late not to support it. Once built, however, we should consider, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested, opening the area to public access at least when the House is in recess. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the authorities to devise a system by which this could be done.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) mentioned the possibility of the surface being used as a recreational area. I suggest that this should not be for the more formal communal games that he may be better associated with than I am, but certainly it could be a place where people might


sit, perhaps enjoying the view and talking. There are precious few places where that can be done in a civilised manner within the Palace of Westminster, even though it contains 1,100 rooms and two miles of corridor, and covers eight acres.
I hope, therefore, that ways of using this area, in addition to the obvious possibilities, will be gone into, and, with the greatest respect, I ask the Services Committee to look to the possibility of revising the surface treatment and including the pool in at least part of the area. I shall not vote against the report, at least at this stage, if these assurances can be given.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I had not intended to speak in this debate until I heard some extraordinary sentences uttered around me, begining with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I agree with him in most things, except that this debate is not as important as he claimed. New Palace Yard has been in existence for a long time—from the beginning of history, I think someone said, or at least from the beginning of the recorded history of this Palace. It has been gravel; it has been mud; it has been covered and uncovered; people have put fountains in it and taken them away; and now beneath it is a car park. But I do not think it is the most important thing to have happened in the British Isles and I do not think it is as important as some of the crises which I suspect are developing around us.
We have had some extraordinary nonsense about the past history of the yard. The origin of the nonsense was the Committee itself, which says that it should be austere and covered in granite setts. One member of the Committee has said that he did not know what granite setts were until he joined in writing the report, when, presumably, someone told him.
It has been said that people were stopped from getting at the fountain. That was so with the Tudor fountain, but not with the mediaeval fountain. The fountain in mediaeval times provided so much water for the palace—this was in about 1440, I think—that the surplus was given away free to the citizens of Westminster.

Those citizens were very pleased, and lots of people used to walk in to get free water. Water in those days cost money. I suppose it still does as we pay a water rate.
In those days the yard was not a yard in the austere sense. It was a little place surrounded by buildings. There were pubs. I think somebody mentioned that there should now be a hamburger stall. Indeed, there were once shops which sold food. Free water was supplied to Westminster citizens. At one time Cromwell lived across the road. There were houses, shops and pubs. They called them ale houses but they were basically pubs. It was a busy little place. I do not know how the idea of austerity crept in. I am grateful to the Committee for one thing, I now know that the trees along one side of New Palace Yard are called catalpa trees. I never knew that before.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is the man who writes in Socialist Commentary.

Mr. English: We are told that the yard should be paved austerely with granite setts. I used to live in Rochdale, and I note that driving over granite setts has not been mentioned. I am not renowned amongst my colleagues as a great car driver. I remember distinctly taking a driving test and driving at a 40 degree angle on a road in Rochdale which was paved with granite setts. I did not pass my test. The granite setts will at least slow up the traffic. I hope that that is realised by the Committee.
There will be a little road round the yard. That has presumably been designed to slow up the people rushing in late at night. I also notice, having looked closely at the photograph, that there is a gap in the bollards. That makes it possible to park cars in the middle of the yard, despite what is said in the Committee's report. The photograph gives a demonstration of how that can be done.
As the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) implied, it would be ridiculous to spend such a large amount of money to provide parking for more than 500 cars underground, or whatever the figure is, and not to allow one car above the ground at ten o'clock when there is a Division. I sincerely hope that we shall


not be so daft as to say that if the underground car park is full no one can park on New Palace Yard. People have been doing that for centuries.
Our ancestors used to have Divisions later at night than we do now. The standard finishing time for the House was long after ten o'clock. The parking of vehicles on New Palace Yard goes back to the days when there were coaches pulled by horses. The days of coaching go back to the seventeenth century. Presumably before that there were sedan chairs. They go back to the sixteenth century. Presumably before that horses were brought to the yard and hitched up there. In those days they had not invented sedan chairs.
In so far as the yard is a yard, it is one of the busiest places in Westminster. I hope that we shall not make a meal and an incredible nonsense over this stage of the arrangements. We are talking now about austerity and granite setts. They will have to be set in little fan-shaped scollops. To think in austere terms might be to think of straight lines. Incidentally, straight lines would look very good. I suggest that somebody should consider the design of the granite setts before they are put down.
The long and short of it is that we are making a rather long-winded nonsense about the matter. Having said that, I shall sit down.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Idris Owen: I rise not to delay the proceedings but to add a little weight. I cannot offer any more illumination on the subject than my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). I am in agreement with him. I, too, am distressed and disappointed with the solution being offered by such a body as the Fine Art Commission. I am distressed and disappointed that it should be so austere. Austerity in itself may be worthy, but in this instance I feel that we must complement the House of Commons with something much more attractive than just a paved yard.
I echo the views expressed on the Opposition benches about the public use of the place during times of recess and at weekends. It is terrible that we should claim exclusive right in this place and that no one else should have the use

of premises which the nation has had to pay for and which it will have to pay for.
I know that hindsight may be a wonderful thing, but I am appalled at the cost of the project. I understand that it will cost approximately £15 a car in interest charges alone, even if it is used for 52 weeks of the year and seven days a week. The cost of the project is frightening to contemplate.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth. He is a professional architect and planner. His advise to me has been sounder than the advice given by the Fine Art Commission. We should have more tree planting. We should have a floral background. We should have some water. I support the use of the pavings to a limited extent. I am frightened by what the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has described. The question has been asked, "What is wrong with putting an occasional car on to New Palace Yard at Division times?". Once that practice had been established it would not be possible to stop it. Before long the paved yard would be covered with motor cars. That is something which we must try to avoid at all costs. Surely we have not considered expending such a vast amount of money to get rid of the modern paraphernalia of transport only to concede that there should be the parking of cars at some future date? If I owned the yard I should want to put a substantial restrictive covenant on its future use for motor car parking.
I should like to make the yard so attractive that it would be a great delight and pleasure to visitors to this country and the people of London. I should like to see them enjoy it to the full in times of recess and during weekends. They could not enjoy walking round an austere paved yard with just a few catalpa trees on the Bridge Street side.
I plead with the Minister to think in terms of making it a more attractive place in which to walk and sit. It should not be a place only for hon. Members to reflect and relax in but a place to give pleasure to the people who will have to pay for this expensive venture.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby,


North (Mr. Whitehead), I hope that none of my constituents asks me what I was doing on the evening of Monday 10th December. I do not know how I would explain that I was solemnly discussing the landscape of New Palace Yard during a raging economic crisis and a major resources shortage. I do not know how that could be convincingly explained. I should prefer to see the House discussing the matter after ten o'clock.
The Committee is right to reject a replica Tudor fountain. That would have seemed a bit of a phoney. The Committee has not considered marking the position and outline of the Tudor fountain by the use of granite setts of a different colour. Such a scheme would relieve the unbroken tedium of the surface which is now proposed. Second, it would conform more closely to what we conceive to be the real historical situation than merely an unrelieved open yard. I refer to paragraph 5 of the report. Third, it would add to the few surviving indications of the mediaeval and post-mediæval palace. It would make it possible for Members, visitors and others to orientate themselves more effectively to the past situation. The needs of visitors might sensibly be taken into consideration.

Mr. Eyre: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would go back to the beginning of his remarks. I have noted the points which he has just made, but I understand that he was making a suggestion to add variety of some kind, which I missed.

Mr. Dalyell: I was suggesting the marking and the outlining of the position of the Tudor fountain by the use of granite setts of a different colour. Red granite or certain shades of grey granite could be used for that purpose. This idea at least deserves an answer and some consideration, if not tonight.
There is a point of concern to me. Why was the Committee told, according to paragraph 7 of the report, that
none of the remains of the earlier fountains which have been excavated could be incorporated in a new 'Tudor' fountain"?
The impression given by the Minister in explaining the demolition and insisting that all was not lost was that the remains had been carefully taken down for

eventual preservation. On 7th March 1973, the morning when the Tudor fountain was being broken up by pneumatic drills, my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—who, we hope, is recovering in hospital—asked why it was being demolished. The Minister replied in words which every developer now doubtless cherishes. He said:
The conduit is not being demolished. Its remains are being dismantled …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March 1973; Vol. 852, c. 122.]
What is the difference between "demolition" and "dismantling"? This is playing with the English language. I see the Under-Secretary of State chuckling, but I hope that he will get some explanation from his officials about what has happened. The answer certainly gave the impression that there was going to be some proper conservation of what was found.
An earlier fountain was subsequently found, described by the Minister as
a splendid and highly important piece".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 55.]
It is surely pertinent now to ask just what all this means. How much has been destroyed, how much dismantled? How much can be reconstructed, if it is reconstructed? If anything remains—it is a bit of an "if"—where is it going to be displayed? After all my hon. Friends have said about the use of the motor car in the future, one might surely find some tiny corner for a public display. What action is going to be taken on display?
In a sense, although I have asked innumerable questions about the fountain, it may be a bit of a side issue. The truth is that it understandably caught the imagination of both hon. Members and the Press, but the real point in criticism of the Department and the Minister, certainly for me, was the failure to bother even to establish the archaeological potential of New Palace Yard before its destruction by development. This was really a major blunder, and there has been no defence of the failure to take action. No excuse has been offered which gives satisfaction. It must remain water under the bridge now, but at least even at this point of time some specific questions are worth putting.
First, as a result of the New Palace Yard situation, what steps have been taken to draw up a detailed survey of the archaeological potential of the various areas of the palace and to lay down a code of practice to be followed in all disturbances of the soil in the palace precincts?
Secondly, what steps are being taken to make public the archaeological results of the rescue work in New Palace Yard? When will a report with detailed descriptions appear? In what form is it likely to be published?
Thirdly, what steps are being taken to arrange for the public display of the discoveries, and when and where will this take place?
Fourthly, it is rumoured that considerable timbers, preserved by the waterlogged conditions, were pulled up by the mechanical diggers in March and April, and that work was halted to allow for archaeological examination. How long was the delay? How much did it cost? What was achieved? What evidence has been recovered of the use of the New Palace Yard area in the late Saxon period? Can we be quite certain that the discoveries went right down to bedrock, because, if so, no serious dating can be given of the Saxon palace, which, certainly of the period, is one of the most remarkable monuments in the whole of England.
Finally, I ask about the cost of the archaeological element. It is said to have been about £20,000, and it is very much mixed up with the question of delay, about which I asked earlier. So, expressing a good deal of criticism—which should be answered—about the general attitude to archaeology, I express the hope that if we have other major archaeological sites excavated and new building, either in London or elsewhere, more attention will be paid than to Baynard's Castle and to our own doorstep. One of the gloomiest aspects of this whole story is that, whereas we in the Palace of Westminster should have been setting an example in archaeology to the rest of the country, on our own doorstep we have not distinguished ourselves—and that, frankly, is the fault of the Government.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I share the sense of embarrassment that we

are debating this matter at so early an hour. Although I quite understand the reasons which prompted the holding of the debate at 7 o'clock, it is a bit ironic to recall that we passed the car park scheme in the dead of night and that we had to struggle for months to get a three-hour debate about the parliamentary building, which was to cost £30 million, on a conservative estimate. That justified three hours. We are now being allowed to spend up to three hours in discussing expenditure of under £250,000 at a time when the nation is faced with grave problems, whether one calls them crises or otherwise. It is ludicrous and shameful, and I intend to exercise one little option tonight and call a Division, because we may as well justify our presence in some way. I am not happy about what is being proposed.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments about having the debate at this time of day. All of us do. But the point is that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House arranged the debate at this time because it was demanded of him on both sides of the House. In fairness to my right hon. Friend, I should point out that it is for that reason that the debate is being held tonight.

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is entitled to his opinion. I am entitled to mine. I just do not feel that this hour is justified. I believe that we could have justified a full day's debate on the parliamentary building. I certainly think that the principle of the car park and the £3 million expenditure on it justified this sort of debate. I do not believe that the landscaping of New Palace Yard justifies it. I think that the select few who are sufficiently interested in architecture, archaeology and the rest, would have been here at 3 o'clock in the morning if necessary. We could have had the debate after the normal business of the day. However, let it pass.
What we are tonight commemorating in a sense is a monument to our folly in letting this car park suggestion go through. Although hon. Members have talked about it being £2½ million for 600 cars, that is not strictly true because 226 cars are provided for already. In fact, we are to spend about £2½ million on parking for about 300 cars. It is ludicrous.
I sincerely hope that much thought will be given to alternative uses of this space. Many things could be done with it. Taking up the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), Congress for instance has underground gymnasia to keep members fit. Many things could be done with these five levels with proper air conditioning underground. I shall vote against the proposal partly for that reason. I want to register my protest and I hope that we shall think again, even at this late stage.
But if we cannot—and we must be realistic and expect that initially the cars will go in—what would be the best use for this space? I do not believe that the suggestion of the Services Committee is particularly imaginative or challenging. In fact, it is rather dull and dreary. I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) said, although we have frequently crossed swords on issues of this sort. We were on opposite sides during the parliamentary building fiasco. God preserve us from that coming to pass. If it does, we would need something to soften the impression of the gargantuan abortion which will be put up across the road. That indeed would be a monument to the folly of Parliament.
Let us use the space as imaginatively as possible. I entirely endorse the comment of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that it should be more accessible to the public. If we had a granite surround, with some grass and a pool in the centre, it would at least be a place of which Londoners would be proud and which people coming to the capital would be glad to see, when we are here and when we are not here. I do not see why we should totally isolate ourselves from the public. Whatever happens, not to have a focal point in the yard whether it be a pool or a statue, would be quite ridiculous. We could perhaps put Cromwell's statue there. It is standing outside under some dust sheets. It might be appropriate to have a statue of Cromwell in New Palace Yard.
My plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is twofold. First, let us think carefully about the use of these five storeys of space. Let us consider whether a Members' bicycle shed and

room for 200 cars on the top of the yard would be adequate and see whether we can use the space underneath in a better way. If this is not possible, let us use much more imaginatively the space on top with some water and a bit of greenery, something which will help to complement what is by any standards one of the finest series of buildings in one of the most wonderful environments in the world.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I, too, deprecate the time taken to debate this subject during this week. I think of the number of times when I have sat on these benches wishing, without success, to intervene in an important debate and here I am, with plenty of time, during a week of what can only be called crisis, debating this matter.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth, (Mr. Sydney Chapman) has defended his boss for choosing this subject for debate this week, and so perhaps we had better get on with it. If somebody had asked me even a couple of hours ago whether I had anything in common with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), politically anyway, I would have said, "Certainly not." However, I agree with his remarks, but I wish to go even further than he went in suggesting what we should do with the space.
One can see from the plan that basically it will be a wide open space. I cannot see that much skill is involved in landscaping it with a ring of bollards and a dozen lamp posts. Basically there is nothing else other than the vague pattern of granite setts to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) referred which we can see if we look closely enough. That seems to be all the landscaping there is. If my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. James Lamond), who was a provost of Aberdeen, were here, he would agree that Aberdeen granite setts would last many Parliaments if they were laid.
I should like to digress on the question of the fountain about which my hon. Friend he Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke so knowledgeably. An underground pass for pedestrians was required under the main square in Sofia—a fairly busy traffic area. When the workmen started to dig they discovered


some very old Roman remains and, instead of dismantling or demolishing them, they incorporated them in the underground passage and made them into a museum. It was extraordinarily well done. If we had been clever enough to incorporate the fountain in the car park, it would have been a good thing.
Can we afford to make the area into open space? We have Parliament Square. We do not need more open space. We have trees on one side and closed railings on the other. Frankly the concept is a complete waste of money. The car park is there—we all agreed that it was a mistake. The decision slipped through late at night. It was a fait accompli. Someone said, "You must support it now".
If the estimate is £2½ million now, we can be certain that it will be £3 million when it is finished. But what return shall we get? Do we and the staff deserve this expensive perquisite? We have had 200 to 300 cars parked there for many years. My suggestion is that we should pay for the new car park. It is difficult to get parking in London. The other day I went to Glasgow for a day and a half, left my car in the Euston railway station car park and when I returned I had to pay £3·15. Nearly 50 per cent. of MPs use their parking space free. Why should it be free? One hon. Member left his car for months. What would that cost in a private car park?

Mr, Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend is on an interesting point. I canvassed this idea some time ago. Would he be prepared to comment on the fact that although a majority of hon. Members use the car park, there are those like myself who do not in normal circumstances travel to the House by car. But as I sometimes travel as a passenger in somebody else's car, I should be prepared to pay, say, £1 a week. If the 630 MPs and 400-odd staff were involved in that exercise it could raise about £50,000 a year.

Mr. Mackie: My hon. Friend has put a good deal of my speech ahead of its time. I suggest that the area should be laid out again as a car park and that the parking spaces should be sold to MPs. We should charge fees for the top half, not at £1 a week but at £100 a year,

which is only £2 a week. That would still be much cheaper than the normal parking fee for Central London. The first storey of the underground car park could cost hon. Members about £80 a year, with a cheaper rate the lower one goes. No one should begrudge such payment.
There is much talk of the motor car being on its way out. That is wishful thinking. It will be with us for many years and used probably as much as today.
If we should find that we have extra space, let it to the public on the basis of so much a year, so much for six months. In that way one would avoid the expense of attendance and we should start to get some of the money back. Some people say that it will not affect them because they will be leaving this place at the end of this Parliament. Like the hon. Member for Faversham I like the bustle of people coming and going. It must have been much the same when carriages were used.
If this suggestion is not accepted I have to say that I rather liked the suggestion put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) about putting the space to some use. Tennis courts or some such thing would be my choice. It has been said that using the other storeys for other purposes had been considered. What uses were in mind? We realise that the car park was a mistake in the first place. Let us not make a second mistake and waste more money. Let us get something out of the open space.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Eyre: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. The right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) questioned the timing of the decision. Very fairly he acknowledged that this is a smaller decision following upon a larger one. I must remind my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) that it was made clear in the debate of 22nd December, 1972 that my Department is only the servant of the House in this matter. We accept our directions from the House collectively. I go back to the debate of December 1972 to point out that the general order of costs stems from the recommendations of the Services Committee.
It was emphasised in that debate that the Services Committee has all-party representation. Its decisions, which are important, receive considerable publicity and the decision referred to tonight went back to the Session 1967–68. It was endorsed by the House without a Division after a debate which began at 3.55 p.m. on 9th June, 1972, was continued at 11 p.m. on 13th June and ended at 12.34 a.m. on 14th June. If any hon. Member thinks that the car park was in the wrong place or that it was too costly or out of tune with current environmental concepts he ought to consider seriously what he was doing when that decision to go ahead was made on 14th June, 1972.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend will also concede that way back in 1967 this idea of an underground car park came from the Government of the day, from the Department and not from hon. Members. It would never have got anywhere if the Government had scotched it then.

Mr. Eyre: I note what my hon. Friend says. He has a great knowledge of the detail. We all have to admit that all hon. Members must collectively accept responsibility for the decision then made.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether New Palace Yard was to be a garden or a courtyard. He suggested that hon. Members must park their cars properly before Divisions. The placing of well-designed bollards round the driveway might be a practical help to that end.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the laying on of water to the site. There is a possibility that later generations may wish to erect a fountain and we are trying to be considerate of their interests. It occurred to my Department that hon. Members might decide to have a pool. We are trying, at a time when it is not expensive to do the preparatory work, to give the opportunity for that to be done. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the granite setts which are proposed will be comfortable to walk on. By their nature they are of substantial weight, as they have to be to provide a firm walkway. The decision is not irreversible. It could be changed by another Parliament should it so wish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham also questioned the original decision and spoke of the necessity of avoiding a dull and unimaginative use of the courtyard. The open paving which is proposed would make the courtyard suitable for many uses. My hon. Friend suggested an archaeological exhibition, and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) suggested a son et lumière demonstration. All these suggestions are worthy of consideration, and ultimately the decision will be taken by the Services Committee, the Select Committee of the House which is responsible for decisions about the use of the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Dalyell: As the Liberal Party has put forward this fruitful suggestion of a son et lumière exhibition, may we have a son et lumière exhibition of the Liberal Party spokesman's policy statement about the dam across the Channel?

Mr. Eyre: That would be interesting, but not entirely relevant to the question of paving stones.
One difficulty about an archaeological exhibition is that it might cause a degree of confusion when hon. Members arriving late from a speaking engagement are rushing to take part in a Division. All these suggestions merit careful consideration by the Select Committee.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) asked about the use of the courtyard for recreational purposes and he suggested that two tennis courts might be appropriate. We must bear in mind that a security aspect may be involved in such use. However, all these proposals merit consideration.
The hon. Gentleman went on to raise wide-ranging questions about the future use of motor cars. He will appreciate that I am in no position to answer those questions with authority, but probably the successful extraction of North Sea oil and the possible successful development of the electric car for private carriage would be a relevant consideration.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North asked what would happen if the House reversed its earlier decision in regard to the use of these underground premises as a car park. To some extent the posing of the question is somewhat hypothetical. No studies have been undertaken, but I have


noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks on alternative use, including use in the recesses. I shall arrange for his suggestions to be examined by way of a report to the appropriate Select Committee. That reply also goes for the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack). We should consider all these matters in detail.
I come to the major question about landscaping proposals which the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) posed in his remarks. He asked why there should be a hard surface to the courtyard. The Committee recommended that New Palace Yard should be given a hard surface of granite setts. Should some small tree planting be required in addition, this would be technically possible, although some are of the opinion that this would be aesthetically and historically undesirable. There is a difference of opinion on this matter.
New Palace Yard has been an open courtyard as long as records go back. It was at one time twice as large as we see it today, and its wide expanse set off the great north end of Westminster Hall and was relieved only by an elaborate well head or fountain. The Royal Fine Art Commission holds the view that although New Palace Yard is smaller today than it was in times past, it is important to retain its noble scale and simplicity and that a yard with a common sloping surface consisting of setts, with its simplicity relieved by the catalpa trees, which we all regard with affection, would be an appropriate solution.

Mr. Cormack: There were some alarming reports about a year ago that the catalpa trees were dying or were likely to be killed off as a result of the excavations. Can my hon. Friend reassure the House on this point?

Mr. Eyre: I think the catalpa trees have a limited life. The trees we have at present are 80 or 90 years old. It is likely that they will come to the end of their life in 10 to 15 years' time.

Mr. Cormack: They have not been affected by the excavations?

Mr. Eyre: No, they have not been damaged or interfered with. I am sure that hon. Members will require us at a later stage to take every care to replace

the catalpa trees. I shall refer to that subject a little later.

Mr. Mackie: I have it on good authority that these catalpa trees require a lot of moisture and that this is the reason why they might be dying. Would it not be possible to see that they obtain artificial moisture?

Mr. Eyre: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and I am sure that experts working in my Department will take note of that remark and try to do everything possible to preserve the catalpa trees. That is our intention. It is important to retain the noble scale and simplicity of the proposal so that we have a yard with a common sloping surface consisting of setts, its simplicity relieved by catalpa trees. That is believed to be an appropriate solution. Westminster City Council takes a similar view, and it has been suggested that to do otherwise presents a danger of producing a suburban solution to a problem on a monumental scale.
For that reason, it has been suggested that the breakdown of the surface by the use of water or grass would be inappropriate, and in that respect I was glad to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) who has given a great deal of time and effort to studying these problems. I thought that my hon. Friend admirably described the use of fan-shaped groups of concrete setts to provide a serviceable and attractive surface. I noted the advice of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) about the pattern of paving stones, though it was, to some extent, in conflict with the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West.

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend will appreciate that what I was describing was produced by his Department in the photograph in the report. It was not my idea. It was his Department's idea, and a very good one, too.

Mr. Eyre: I was trying to say I was glad that my hon. Friend had noted that the Department's design was appropriate to the circumstances and pleasing to him. I confirm, as my hon. Friend said, that trees could be planted between the setts. I mention that because a number of hon. Members raised the point, and it is obviously a matter of concern.
I come back to the question of the cost of alternative schemes. This was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). My hon. Friend asked for a combination of all three features—grass, water and paving—and in his argument he was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended to prohibit parking in this area. His great fear was that cars would be allowed to park there.

Mr. Idris Owen: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was concerned about that.

Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend would disapprove of any proposal to allow parking in New Palace Yard. I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended to prohibit parking.
I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth that only the recommended treatment has been costed. It is likely that it would be rather less expensive in capital costs to cover the centre of the yard with grass, although that would involve an appreciable continuing expenditure. A water treatment would cost more, both in capital and in recurring terms. The reason is that it would need to be still water and the surface would require to be self-cleaning, as would the pool. If there is a still surface, apparently it must be a self-cleaning installation. That is expensive, and an adequately designed bronze lip or something of that sort to the pool would also be an expensive item.

Mr. Houghton: If the House wishes to be warned against the use of still water, I invite hon. Members to look at what visitors do with the water near the Old Jewel House. They throw in waste paper, they try to feed fish that are not there, and they do all sorts of funny things to the water. I am sure that using water would be risky.

Mr. Eyre: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view. I have seen empty cigarette packets floating in the water there, and the whole thing looks extremely unpleasant.
I come back to the principle of the surfacing of the yard. Granite setts are

not a cheap material, but New Palace Yard is a very special place where dignity, nobility of scale and great simplicity are appropriate. With respect to my hon. Friend, who I know has great experience in these matters, it is no place for an effect which might apply in a new town market place. New Palace Yard is already very small and break-up treatment would make it even smaller in appearance. What is sought is simplicity, dignity and spaciousness, and it is believed that this would be best achieved by the use of granite setts. There is not sufficient granite available in this country to provide all the granite setts that would be needed and we expect to find a continental source. I have noted the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth and other hon. Members on this score and I will certainly arrange that—

Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend cannot seriously believe that from the quarries of Cornwall, Aberdeen and other areas we are unable to find enough granite to pave New Palace Yard.

Mr. Eyre: I am being perfectly frank with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in telling them what I have been informed in this respect, but there will certainly be a check to see whether suitable supplies are available in this country.
Regarding trees and shrubs, paragraph 6 of the report notes the view of the Royal Fine Art Commission that the simplicity of the yard should be relieved by the catalpa trees. It should be borne in mind that there will be an opportunity in the future, when the catalpa trees have come to the end of their effective life, to reconsider what new planting will be required. That would be a good time for hon. Members to consider whether the replanting on the Westminster Bridge frontage should be extended to the Parliament Square frontage. Hon. Members often argue that the Parliament Square frontage would be improved by a row of catalpa trees. That would be more appropriate if the proposals being put to the House this evening are carried out.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were big trees all along that side it would not be possible to see into the yard, or to see half of the parliamentary buildings, from Parliament Square. Consideration should


be given to having small trees, set out in a formal fashion in a similar way to those outside St. Paul's Cathedral. Such a scheme would provide in two or three years a series of shaded areas which would be much more useful for hon. Members and for the public.

Mr. Eyre: I am grateful for that suggestion, which will be carefully considered. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested marking the position and outline of the former site of the Tudor fountain with coloured paving stones. We shall consider this interesting suggestion. My Department will prepare a report on that proposal and forward it for consideration to the appropriate services committee. The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). I wish to pay tribute to the keenness with which the hon. Member for Brixton applied himself to the matter of the developments in New Palace Yard. He was always keenly interested and I am sorry that he cannot be with us this evening.
There was reference not to "demolish" but to "dismantle". The hon. Gentleman has an imaginative turn of mind in relation to words he uses on occasions, but I think he chose the word "demolished", whereas it was being dismantled with considerable care.

Mr. Houghton: Is not the difference between demolition and dismantling that demolition is breaking up and dismantling is taking to pieces?

Mr. Eyre: That must be so. Indeed, I understand that in the United States demolition contractors call themselves "wreckers". I think that that rather supports the right hon. Gentleman's view.

Mr. Dalyell: After the wreckers or demolition contractors finish, the point of substance is where these remains are now.

Mr. Eyre: I shall be coming to the further matters raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian in a moment.
The hon. Member for West Lothian asked what was the time spent on the archaeological work. The answer is that there were six weeks of intensive work on the fountain followed by a similar period

for environmental study. In addition there were several brief excavations at specific points. There was also a continuous monitoring of the work of the contractors as it progressed.
I am doing my best to answer the questions raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I intend to write to him giving further details after careful consideration of all his points. I am afraid that I cannot fairly and adequately answer them all tonight. However, I much appreciate his consistent interest in archaeological work and I realise what a serious interest he has in the subject.

Mr. Whitehead: Will the parts, fragments or shards of the fountain, which hon. Members were able to see before it was taken to pieces, be put together? The whole point about dismantling is that it can be "mantled".

Mr. Eyre: Yes, quite so.
Dealing with the background of the large-scale archaeological excavations and the reasons why the work on the car park was carried out in that way, the Department did not embark on the project without considering the archaeological and historical significance of the site. We consulted our Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments in September 1971 and we were advised that the results of a prior excavation would not justify the expense and the inconvenience to Members though it was desirable that the inspectorate should hold a watching brief throughout the period of construction. In view of that, we have had an inspector of ancient monuments and an assistant on the site continually since work began in July 1972. All the evidence found during the course of the work confirms that this was right and that we would not have been justified in ignoring the historical research and using the taxpayers' money in a large-scale preliminary diagram.
A thorough environmental study was made of the area which proved that the area of the yard had been a marsh until about 1066. This has been proved by both radio-carbon tests made by Harwell and pollen analyses made at Oxford. There was no question of a Saxon palace being sited in a morass. All the historical and documentary evidence points to it being situated close to Old Palace Yard.

Mr. Dalyell: Does all the carbon dating of timbers justify the assertion that everything found there is after 1066?

Mr. Eyre: It is difficult for me to reply to all the hon. Gentleman's technical questions. However, there is no note of any timber believed to be mediaeval being removed, though possibly remains of posts or of fencing of a later date may have survived. I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman all the information that I have about these points.
The hon. Member for West Lothian went on to suggest a code of practice. I can assure him that no digging takes place within the Palace of Westminster without full consultation with our professional advisers, and they have a very keen interest in these matters.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) and others asked specifically about the fountain. The first specific mention of a fountain or conduit-house in New Palace Yard is in 1399 when it was decorated for the coronation of Henry IV. It was later rebuilt in the middle of the fifteenth century and again in Tudor times. Incorporated in its foundations were the remains of about half of an elaborately decorated marble fountain of about the time of Richard I, thought to have stood originally in or near Old Palace Yard. It is the remains of this fountain that we want to exhibit, what is left of later fountains being too fragmentary and best illustrated with drawings and photographs.
I have already suggested that the site of the Great Fountain might be indicated in the pattern of setts to be laid in New Palace Yard. The hon. Member for West Lothian has suggested a way that that presentation might be improved.
This late twelfth century fountain had a central bowl, the plan of which was a flower of ten petals. The outside of the bowl was decorated with ten slender columns with deeply carved foliage capitals supporting a richly moulded rim. The bowl was placed above an encircling moulded balustrade and between the bowl and the balustrade a marble trough received the water flowing from the outlets in the bowl.
The essential thing for the disposal of the archaelogical finds is to find a site for exhibiting the remains of the twelfth century fountain where it can be protected

from the weather. Various possibilities occur, some long term and some short. It would be impracticable to reconstruct them in New Palace Yard; nor would this be entirely appropriate when the remains of the substructure were only used as hardcore there and properly belong to Old Palace Yard.
I have noted the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East who asked whether the fountain could be exhibited in the car park. It might not be easily accessible down there, and there may be some other technical objection of which I would not be aware. I shall certainly ask for the hon. Gentleman's suggestion to be investigated to see whether there is a chance of the exhibition being put into the car park. The hon. Gentleman's point about charging for the use of the car park is, of course, a matter for the Services Committee.
Various possibilities occur for the exhibiting of these interesting finds. As I said, it would be impracticable to reconstruct them in New Palace Yard; nor would this be entirely appropriate as they properly belong to Old Palace Yard. Our experts will give this matter a good deal more thought before a final solution is reached, although the Jewel Tower opposite Victoria Tower may be the best interim solution.

Mr. Idris Owen: I get the impression from the Select Committee's Report that the Minister for Housing and Construction recommended the construction or the re-erection of the fountain. He appears now not to be particularly interested in that suggestion. Will my hon. Friend tell me why he has changed his mind?
Will he also spare a thought for those poor people who sit and stand outside the St. Stephen's entrance hour by hour in inclement and other weather—the excavations are now transferred up the ramp—and consider offering them some facilities whilst they wait to get into the Palace of Westminster when the pressure is great?

Mr. Eyre: It was thought to be inappropriate to erect a mock Tudor fountain on the site, first, because of cost and, secondly, because there were doubts whether it was the right thing to do.

Mr. Owen: It was the Minister's suggestion.

Mr. Eyre: Upon consideration of these matters certain objections arose, one of which was cost.
Would it be of great advantage to re-erect these archaelogical finds and to place them on this spot? I think that many hon. Members would have been interested if that had been a practical proposition. Unfortunately, the nature of the finds and the damage that has been done to them throughout history means that they are not suitable for exhibition in the open air. That is why we are now searching to find an appropriate place in which these exhibits can be shown in good style under cover.

Mr. English: To return to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), the Under-Secretary may be coming to it, but he has not so far mentioned the criticisms which have been made. One was about the timing of this debate, which is the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council. He has said about five times that he is not responsible for what is being put forward because the Services Committee has recommended it, but it so happens that the Chairman of the Services Committee is also the Lord President of the Council. It may be that he is ill and that we should express our condolences, but at some point we should be told why the right hon. Gentleman who should be moving this motion is not doing so.

Mr. Eyre: On the question of timing, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, as has been said earlier in the debate, this item which we are discussing is the small completion of a much larger project which was decided by a resolution of the House. The work on the main car park is proceeding, and we are discussing the finishing item which governs access to the Palace by a very large number of Members and other people, and therefore the practical requirements of timing in that respect require the House to come to a decision now on that issue. That is why we are having this debate tonight and discussing this matter in detail.

Mr. Whitehead: In fact, it was I who first raised this matter. The point surely is why such a trivial matter should take up three hours of peak parliamentary time in a situation of such national gravity.

Mr. Eyre: It was at the request of hon. Members.

Mr. William Hamilton: Which hon. Members?

Mr. Eyre: Hon. Members have raised this matter and have asked that this subject should be discussed at a convenient hour and that proper time should be allowed for consideration and debate. It is a matter of some interest that so many Members have taken part in the debate. There has been an exchange of ideas and I think we have all benefited from that exchange.

Mr. Hamilton: Who are the hon. Members who expressed such tremendous interest in a three-hour debate on this trifling matter?

Mr. Eyre: The hon. Member is able to look back as well as anyone else over questions which have been raised during Business Questions in the House. He is normally very diligent in requiring that the House should be sensitive to these matters and should try to give time for discussion. Time having been allocated, that does not control the number of Members who take part in the debate, and a great number of Members have been interested. I have tried to reply to the points which have been raised.
We have had considerable discussion in detail of these matters tonight. A vital point was raised by the right hon. Member for Sowerby, whether New Palace Yard is to be a garden or a courtyard. For the reasons which I have advanced, concerned with simplicity, scale and dignity, I hope it will be thought more appropriate that the recommendation of the Select Committee should be accepted, bearing in mind that that would not preclude at a later stage the growing of trees to bring about some variation, or indeed another idea of a more profound nature, to answer the question posed by the right hon. Member for Sowerby. But tonight I should like to urge that we accept the recommendation of the Select Committee.

Mr. Moate: May I ask for my hon. Friend's assistance? He has courteously offered to consider many suggestions which have been put forward, but am I right in thinking that if the House approves this sixth report we shall be


proceeding with the recommendations of this report, including the overall covering of granite setts?

Mr. Eyre: Yes, that would be so, but I want to make clear to my hon. Friend that I have tried to demonstrate that within that major decision, which I believe to be right, there is still an opportunity for variation in other finer points

Question accordingly negatived.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gray.]

TEACHERS (LANARKSHIRE)

9.25 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I applied for this debate because of the critical staffing shortage which exists in Lanarkshire schools, particularly secondary schools. The education authority calculates that there are 366 vacancies in the county's secondary schools and in a recent report by the Scottish Education Department—I think it was the Staffing Census Survey—the Department calculated that there was a

which have been raised in the course of the debate. I hope that will meet the wishes of hon. Members.

Question put,
That this House approves the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee in the last Session of Parliament on the Landscaping of New Palace Yard (HC Paper No. 424).

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 42.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[9.20 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Awdry, Daniel
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Benyon, W.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Kilfedder, James
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Kinsey, J. R.
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Crouch, David
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Waddington, David


English, Michael
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ward, Dame Irene


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Weatherill, Bernard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Monro, Hector



Gower, Raymond
Perry, Ernest G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gray, Hamish
Redmond, Robert
Mr. Robert Cooke and


Grylls, Michael
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Mr. Ray Mawby.




NOES


Austick, David
Golding, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Pardoe, John


Biffen, John
Hooson, Emlyn
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Roper, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hunter, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McBride, Neil
Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)


Cohen, Stanley
Mackie, John
Torney, Tom


Concannon, J. D.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Dalyell, Tarn
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Doig, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Whitehead, Phillip


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)



Duffy, A. E. P.
Mudd, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Patrick Cormack and


Fookes, Miss Janet
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mr. Roger Moate.


Fox, Marcus

deficiency of about 632 teachers in the new staffing ratio.

Obviously, this is a very serious situation. My colleagues from Lanarkshire constituencies and I have received repeated and increasing complaints from concerned parents, teachers and councillors. I am concerned, with my colleagues, principally about the situation in Lanarkshire, but what I have to say has application to the West of Scotland as a whole because there is a genera] shortage of secondary teachers in the whole area of the West of Scotland. Again, the survey brings that out clearly, and allows that there is a serious problem in the city of Glasgow and the county of Renfrew as well as in the county of Lanarkshire.

In my constituency there is an acute shortage in Calderhead High School, in Shotts, and a serious problem in Chryston High School. The problem also exists in many other parts of the county.

When considering this matter we should pay tribute to the devoted work of many of the teachers who are keeping schools going in very difficult conditions. Without their dedication and the extra effort which they unstintingly make, the problem would be indescribably worse. The community owes a great debt to them. They are working with a shortage of colleagues, and sometimes in difficult conditions. I often wonder whether the community realises just how difficult life is for them, and that when they do make; complaints they are often speaking in a non-exaggerated sense about their problems. The whole of Scotland is fortunate in the services it receives from the teaching profession.

I do not believe that teachers receive adequate financial rewards for their work. I want to make particular points, in a constructive effort to find a solution to the present problem. I do not believe that we shall get a general solution to the problem unless teaching becomes a much more attractive profession from the financial point of view. We have to bear in mind the salaries paid to other people who serve local authorities, and on any comparison with some of the other professions working in the local authority service, teachers come out fairly badly.

I do not think it is enough to say that the staffing position for the whole of Scotland is not too bad. I do not think that we shall solve the problem of mal-distribution until we have more teachers in total, as well as having better distribution. I hope that the community finds a way as soon as possible of adequately rewarding teachers and giving them a good career structure, because teaching is a well deserving profession.

1 understand that today the Under-Secretary of State had a meeting with the Lanarkshire education authority on the question of both staffing and the school building programme. I know that the local authority was looking forward to the meeting, in the hope that between the Government and the local authority some solution to the problems of the teacher shortage and school building would be found. I hope that the hon.

Gentleman will be able to give us a full report on the conclusions reached at the meeting. A lot was expected of it, and I hope that a lot has come from it.

In dealing with the problem of Lanarkshire—and as I have said, this may have some implication for other areas as well—I want to put forward certain suggestions for consideration by the Government. I hope that they will be taken as a constructive attempt to try to get to the root of the problem.

First, is it not time that the payment for teaching in a designated school should be raised from the present level of £200 a year to about £400 a year? The hon. Gentleman has kindly provided me with the latest information on designated posts in Lanarkshire. I understand that there are 1,427 secondary posts of a designated character and that the annual cost of providing these extra payments is £285,400. To double the payment, therefore, would cost roughly another £250.

I believe that the scheme of designated payments, although it has some drawbacks and might not be a good long-term solution to the problem, has in the past helped to solve the problem to some extent, but I doubt whether the present payment is high enough, and I do not think that £250,000 is very much in the context of the total education bill for the county. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow those local education authorities which wish to increase the payment to attract teachers both to the county generally and to certain areas within it to do so. As I understand it, local authorities cannot do so at the moment. I hope that the Government will consider releasing the restrictions upon them so that they may, by their own expenditure, offer more incentives to teachers coming to their areas.

Secondly, I hope that the Minister will consider making more provision for secondary school teacher training in the West of Scotland and the county of Lanark. At present, Lanarkshire has only one teacher training college, which is at Hamilton. It trains only primary teachers. Most teachers go to Jordan-hill or to Notre Dame Training College for secondary training. If facilities were extended in the West of Scotland it might be possible to attract more secondary


teachers. There appears to be some correlation between the existence of teacher training colleges and the attraction of teachers to an area. There is some hope that teachers might be attracted to schools where they are trained, particularly if they see the better side of the school from the teaching point of view. That is something which I know the county of Lanark is keen to pursue. I hope that the Government will follow up that constructive suggestion and will consider whether anything can be done in that regard. I hope that it will be possible for the Minister to consider introducing secondary teacher training facilities at Hamilton at a limited level during the next session. I do not know whether that is a practical possibility. I hope that he will consider that as a short-term measure to try to attract teachers to Lanarkshire.

I hope that on a long-term basis he will be willing to consider setting up an additional training college in the West of Scotland. We should not be complacent in thinking that we will produce a surplus of secondary teachers. As I have said before, we shall never solve the problem of distribution until we have a greater number of teachers.

I hope that the Minister will consider the possibility of an undermanning allowance for teachers who teach in areas where there is an acute shortage. I put that forward as an alternative or an addition to the designated scheme. The idea is to give some recompense to overworked and overstrained staffs in some schools. If their work was recognised in that way it might improve the general morale of the teaching profession, and particularly of those working in difficult conditions.

I hope that the Minister will consider setting up a special unit in his Department to liaise with the local authorities in obtaining a better geographical distribution of secondary teachers within Scotland. Edinburgh, Fife and Aberdeen, for example, are in a surplus situation, while Glasgow, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire face a serious deficit situation. I hope that such a unit will be able to put more pressure on the well-staffed authorities not to recruit new teachers at the expense of other areas. I hope that

such a unit will encourage schemes to attract teachers, such as the provision of housing, where possible.

I know that a voluntary limitation is supposed to be imposed, but that needs to be strengthened as far as possible. I hope that the Minister will have something constructive to say about that. Some authorities, including Lanarkshire, have been constructive in being willing to provide housing for teachers. That is not possible for all authorities. I understand the difficulties facing Glasgow Corporation. That is a matter which might be developed.

Special recruitment schemes for mature students will, I hope, be reintroduced. There was a general theory at one time that while we had an acute shortage of teachers there was no need to continue the scheme. There is good reason for having such a scheme, as it provides another ladder of educational opportunity. If we get only a few extra teachers in that way, valuable teachers might be produced for some of the areas which are in need of extra staff. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to reintroducing such a scheme.

My concern has been to try to find some constructive solution to the problem as soon as possible, so that the new Strathclyde authority, which will include all the areas of serious shortage, will not begin life with an impossible burden. Everyone in the West of Scotland is anxious that the problem should be tackled as soon as possible, so that there is a real chance of obtaining educational opportunity in future.

Fortunately, the staffing situation is not as bad in primary schools. I understand from an answer which the Minister recently gave me that Lanarkshire is about 37 teachers short. None the less, there are still difficulties in this sector. For example, Gartcosh primary school, which has about 100 pupils and which is in my constituency, has, I understand, only one teacher—the headmaster—available at present. I hope that this problem, which has arisen particularly because of staff illness, will soon be resolved, but it serves to remind us in a dramatic way that it is too early to be complacent about primary teacher supply. Problems still arise in this sector of education.

When criticism is made of the shortage of teachers, the Scottish Education Department sometimes takes refuge in the staffing figures for Scotland as a whole But it is clear that there is a particular problem for certain areas which persists in the general pattern, and it requires; special attention. Basically, it will be solved only by treating those areas as educational priority areas and giving the local authorities new resources to tackle the problem. This means increasing their building allocation, giving them all sorts of new methods to attract teachers and a clear Government commitment that, so far as they can allocate expenditure, priority will be given to these educational areas. It is a denial of educational opportunity if we denude certain areas of the most important resource in education—the teachers who teach in the schools.

I am glad to know that Lanarkshire is about to start an ambitious new recruiting scheme, to which I am sure everyone will wish success. My concern is that the Government will back them to the hilt and will be receptive to new ideas and new measures, because they are urgently needed if the present very difficult situation is to be overcome. I hope that the Government will give some indication that their mind is open to any practical and constructive suggestion which will help to solve the very serious problem which affects my constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Richard Buchanan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) for raising this important subject and I support his appeal to the Secretary of State to do the utmost in his power to increase the number of teachers coming into the profession. The constituency of my hon. Friend and my constituency are neighbouring ones. The problems in North Lanarkshire are similar to those in my constituency.
I wrote to the Director of Education for Glasgow about a particular school in my constituency and the reply which I received today states that
It is undoubtedly true that Albert Secondary School is suffering from a shortage of teachers. … Because of the increase in secondary rolls resulting directly from the

raising of the school leaving age … Glasgow alone required over 400 secondary teachers….
A calamitous shortage of 400 teachers, if it were evenly spread, could be borne. But the burden is not evenly spread. Some schools have a shortage of 26 teachers, but many schools have a shortage of 15 to 25 teachers.
There are areas of acute educational deprivation. Springburn is one of them. The redevelopment of Springburn has occasioned the knocking down of buildings and the shifting of people. Teachers, like everyone else, do not like working in a builder's yard. However, the pupil-teacher ratio which the Minister has given takes no account of the non-teaching posts in secondary schools or of teachers who are teaching minority subjects in the upper part of the secondary school and who may have very small classes. In 1964, the ratio was 16·4 to 1.
But even more important is the shortages in subjects. With the school I have in mind, parents are complaining that their children are getting between seven and 10 periods of French a week because in Glasgow they are short of technical, maths and science teachers. Regardless of whether a teacher may be qualified to teach a particular subject if he or she is in a school the headmaster has no alternative but to make use of him. We cannot blame the headmaster in that situation. But our progress as a nation can be no swifter than our progress in education. Any hope we might have for our nation to participate in world leadership, and any hope for real economic growth and the demands of citizenship in an era such as we now live in require the maximum development of every young man and woman.
The human mind is a fundamental resource. My criticism of the Government is that they have constantly minimised the problem facing us. It is only six months since I asked the Minister a Question on the teaching shortage, and accused him of complacency. All our accusations are bearing fruit. I added that on no previous occasion had the general indiscipline of society been such as to demand that we should not endanger the standard of education and conduct which teachers were trying to foster, by placing on them a burden which was completely intolerable.


As my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North said, that burden is becoming completely intolerable. The teachers' organisations are not among the most militant of organisations, but already they are talking about strikes. They are being organised for militant action—and who can blame the teachers? Many of them work in "blackboard jungles".
The raising of the school leaving age was an excellent idea, but the time was not right until we had adequate accommodation and enough teachers to carry out the job. What can we do? My hon. Friend proposed many ideas, which I shall not repeat, but one thing should be seriously considered, particularly in Glasgow and Lanarkshire, namely—as the teachers' organisations requested—that pupils should be allowed to leave school as soon as they reach their 16th birthday. These are the frustrated pupils who are causing trouble in the schools. They display a burning resentment and a desire for revenge on authority. Certain schools find it almost impossible to keep them in check. We hear of pupils being expelled and police brought in to certain schools—not in Springburn, I hasten to add—because of resentment that exists among some of these pupils.
I have written to the Minister about this problem. When I was a manager of a list D school it was possible to license a boy who had been sent to such a school if he behaved himself and could find a job. He came back to the school at night. I realise this is an impossible arrangement for a day school. But it should be possible, as an incentive to good behaviour, for pupils to be licensed at 16 or younger if they can find employment and can be taken into a junior college for further education or evening classes. But for the teachers there is only one solution—pay them decent salaries and provide good conditions of service. I called for that in my first speech in 1964. They are one of the most exploited professions in the kingdom.
There should be a parliamentary inquiry into the teaching profession. We need to take a close look at non-teaching jobs. I am all in favour of promotion—of having a lot of chiefs and few Indians. The promotional structure for teachers

was abysmal. The creation of these posts has given the teachers incentives and a career structure. We are now appointing advisers in education. The benefit of an adviser is that he sees the whole picture. But when we hear about education authorities appointing assistant advisers it is time that we took notice. It has to be a very important post to justify taking a teacher away from the classroom.
I ask the Minister to set up a committee of inquiry to look at the teaching profession in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North has said that we should give teachers the rewards they deserve. I agree. If we do so we shall see a tremendous increase in recruitment and dedication, in a truly dedicated profession.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. James Hamilton: I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith). We both represent Lanarkshire constituencies and with that in mind I intend to follow his lead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) has introduced the Glasgow situation. It is not dissimilar from that prevailing in Lanarkshire. He rightly mentioned that teachers desire promotion. This is not something new, because there are ambitious people in all professions. The only way they can further their careers is through promotion. In some cases there are inter-changes between Glasgow and Lanarkshire for promotion purposes. This means that when a teacher leaves Lanarkshire for promotion in Glasgow and vice versa there is a diminution in the number of teachers in one of these areas.
I do not subscribe to the view that we do not have a shortage of primary teachers. The other week I visited four primary schools in my constituency. I did not select them for any particular reason. I found that two were short of teachers. This is partly because many young people are entering the profession, but the women then get married and leave the profession, often permanently. There is therefore a constant wastage. The teachers' organisations


have consistently said that there should be classes of 30. In many instances in Lanarkshire we have classes of 37 and in one instance, at New Stevenston in my constituency, there is a class of 38.
If we are to encourage people into the profession it is of paramount importance that we take careful note of the salaries paid. We have to consider the sacrifices made by these young people. When they enter the profession they get £1,300. That seems a handsome figure but after taxation it can come down to less than £20 a week to take home. I can talk with some authority on this because two of my daughters are in the profession. How can we expect young teachers to begin married life in a proper fashion and to build up a home of their own on this wage? It is impossible for a person earning that salary to get together the deposit required for purchasing a home, let alone to pay the mortgage.
Local authorities have power to provide houses for young married teachers, and Lanarkshire does a remarkable job here. I ask the Government to encourage local authorities to provide a selection of houses for teachers instead of just in the areas in which they work.
We in opposition have had much to say about the Strathclyde region. With the serious shortage of secondary teachers in Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, I do not know how the new Strathclyde authority will solve the problem.
The Minister will, no doubt, refer to the raising of the school leaving age. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn is consistent in his criticism, but I remind him that the raising of the school leaving age was first suggested in 1946 and the Labour Government said that they would implement it. To be fair to the present Government, it is they who have introduced it. We had difficulties in schools before the raising of the school leaving age and we should not allow ourselves to be side-tracked by that.
In my constituency there are three junior secondary schools and money has been allocated for a new comprehensive school. Unfortunately, possibly because of the brake that has been put on public expenditure by the Government, no conclusion has yet been reached. We are having to wait a long time for the decision. We have three schools for part-

time education and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) the high school is bursting at the seams and many children are not getting an adequate education.
We have a serious shortage of technical teachers and of mathematics and science teachers. There is also a shortage of physical education teachers. There has been a cut-back in the number of students admitted to Cramond College. Many primary school teachers are transferring to Cramond College to take an extra year's training to become secondary and physical education teachers. If we could take such a step in Lanarkshire, there is a possibility that our problem could be solved in a short time. This is a serious point and I hope that the Minister will take due note of it.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Gray.]

Mr. James Hamilton: The Educational Institute of Scotland, a leading organisation representing teachers, put forward a reasonable suggestion that there should be a working party on teachers' conditions. Many of these matters have been set out in a memorandum and I do not agree with some of the points which it contains. We have some good schools in Lanarkshire, some of which are newly built, but because of Government policy many of these newly-constructed schools have proved to be far too small. Within a matter of months, additions to these school premises have proved to be necessary. This is another aspect of the matter which I hope the Minister will consider.
I wish also to mention the fact that the Senior Secondary Teachers' Association is to carry out a strike ballot. If that ballot goes in the direction the association thinks, there will be a teachers' strike in Scotland. This will raise a very serious situation.
The Scottish Schoolmasters' Association suggested that a Royal Commission should be set up to consider this whole matter. I am all in favour of such a commission, but such bodies take a long time to arrive at their conclusions. It


takes even longer for those conclusions to bear fruit and to be implemented. A Royal Commission is more a matter for the long term. Many of my hon. Friends and I are most concerned that this problem should be resolved as quickly as possible.
I appreciate that the Minister today met colleagues from the Lanarkshire County Council on two matters—the serious shortage of teachers and the question of school building. The local authorities are now producing a brochure on the delights of Lanarkshire, which is a wonderful county. We must project Lanarkshire's image because many people want to visit the county. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that his meeting with the local authorities was fruitful. My constituency covers a wide catchment area, but I hope that in regard to Bellshill School the Minister will be able to give me news which will bring a great deal of relief to the people in my constituency and in the catchment area to which I have referred.

10.4 p.m.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I hope that the Minister will allow me to say just a few words on this subject, and I promise him that I shall be brief. Because of the curtailment of the last debate the Minister has been given an opportunity to take a little more time to answer some of our points than perhaps is usually the case.
It is reasonable that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and I should take part in this debate since this subject is common to Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire and Dunbartonshire. I have already pointed out in the Scottish Grand Committee that a number of buses leave my constituency every morning to take teachers to Dumbarton. Therefore, when I speak about the general teacher shortage, I am speaking of the shortage in the whole of the area of western Scotland. It is not an exaggeration to say that the situation is fairly desperate and we hope that the Minister will have much more up-to-date information than we have and will be able to allay some of our worries.
As a result of talking to the teaching bodies and those who have approached us on the matter, we gather that the

whole situation is ready to boil over. The SSTA is holding a ballot on the possibility of a strike, and the EIS is accepting the fact that there will probably be a strike in Glasgow on, I think, 22nd January. Whether we agree with what they are doing, the fact remains that these are responsible people who have reached the point of exasperation.
The EIS has published, as a separate page in its journal, the five points which it considers should be dealt with, and staffs have been asked to display this on notice boards. The list covers such things as conditions for staff, the number of pupils per teacher, working conditions generally, and so on. The EIS has said that if any of these conditions is not met the staff will have its full backing in refusing to continue working. The situation is serious, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of it. That being so, I hope that he will tonight give us some helpful answers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North made a point about the special recruitment scheme. We should like to know how many are being recruited through this scheme. The need is to gain more teachers and to provide another means of obtaining professional and academic qualifications. I hope that the Minister will tell us how many people have been recruited, and for how long the scheme is likely to run.
Reference was made to young people leaving school on their sixteenth birthday. I should like to hear both points of view. This is not something that can be ignored. Whether pupils can in some way be licensed when they reach the age of 16 to enable them to go to work is an important matter.
Almost every authority in the West of Scotland, and in other parts, too, is concerned about the inadequacy of school buildings, and I know that the architects are unhappy about the amount of money that they are allowed to spend per square foot in these days of rapidly escalating prices.
I was appalled when visiting an almost brand new school in my constituency—it is probably only a year old—to see the staff conditions for teachers. I found that about 80 teachers are required to share one large room. We must consider the whole question of the status of teachers and give them something that we


have only now begun to enjoy in the House of Commons, and that is a little individuality. We must provide for two or perhaps three teachers to share a room. That is perhaps asking for the moon, but we should consider giving teachers the minimum professional equipment to enable them to carry out their work.
I ask the Minister to study carefully what all the teachers' organisations in Scotland are saying, namely, that it is necessary to take a completely fresh look at things. A committee of inquiry, a parliamentary inquiry, a working party, or even a Royal Commission on teachers' conditions should be put in hand. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) that a Royal Commission should be considering the matter, but I believe that something more fundamental should be done. Even if the Government think that a Royal Commission is necessary, they should provide for an interim inquiry.
I am sure that we are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North for raising this debate. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the various matters that have been raised. When we come back after the recess there may be a case not just for an adjournment debate but for a full day's discussion of the various issues involved. Unless we receive some reasonable and helpful answers from the Minister tonight the situation may develop in such a way that it will be necessary to debate the whole question of a teacher shortage in an atmosphere of genuine crisis.

10.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Hector Monro): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), to his hon. Friends the Members for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) and Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Wood-side (Mr. Carmichael) from the Opposition Front Bench for speaking on this very important topic. Before discussing the main points which the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North made about secondary staffing I want briefly to refer to the primary situation and, although the hon. Member for Springburn spoke basically about Glasgow, most of the weight in my replies will of course relate to Lanarkshire, which is the basis of the debate.
Nationally the supply of primary teachers went up by about 900 last year and nearly all education authorities are well on the way to the improved standards set for 1975–76. These are a pupil-teacher ratio of 25:1 and a maximum class average of 30. Next summer we estimate that there will be a further net addition of 1,000 teachers for primary schools. Lanarkshire shows a steady improvement and shortages are not widespread. The existing staff is 2,935 and reported shortages are 37. That is about 1 per cent. of the complement of primary teachers
The prospects for the Lanarkshire education authority are good If we look at the graph of the pupil-teacher ratio in recent years we see that in 1969 it was 36·5, in 1971, 32·6, and in 1973, 28·6. It shows a steady improvement in primary education and it is significant. This has to be compared with the neighbouring authorities of Glasgow with 29·5, Renfrew with 26·8 and, significantly, Dumbarton with 21. That shows what can be achieved with the real determination that the Dumbarton education authority have shown. The overall average in Scotland was 24·6. Lanarkshire is likely to get a reasonable share of the additional supply next summer.
Dealing still with primary education, the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North asked about Gartcosh primary school. I was awakened at 7.30 this morning to hear it mentioned on BBC radio. The position is not quite so serious as the hon. Gentleman suggests. This is perhaps welcome news. The latest information about the position which I received this morning from the education authority indicates that the head teacher has always had the assistance of one full-time teacher and that from today another teacher will be working in the mornings. A further appointment has been made and the teacher will take up the post in the New Year. After Christmas the situation should be substantially better than it is today. In addition the authority has hopes of getting temporary relief from another school. These changes should materially improve the position, which was serious when it was down to the head teacher and one assistant. I hope that the measure of part-time education which the education authority introduced recently will soon be discontinued.
There are two other primary schools in Lanarkshire on part-time education. They are St. Michael's at Moodiesburn and Chapelside at Airdrie. At each school two classes are losing about half a day a week. We must keep part-time education in perspective. Some parents may feel that there is a massive discontinuance of education, but frequently it is just a matter of hours or a half day a week.

Mr. John Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman similar good news about St. Michael's at Moodiesburn as he has just been able to give about Gartcosh primary school?

Mr. Monro: I have not today got encouraging information about Moodiesburn, but I hope that the situation will improve after Christmas. There are staff shortages in primary schools, but the real problem in at least one school is due to illness among teachers.
I want to turn to the secondary school situation which is the major burden of the debate tonight. I should like first to describe the national position, because it is right to put the Lanarkshire situation in the national context.
In the first place, there are more secondary teachers than ever before. In recent years the increase has been startling—from 20,900 in 1971 to 24,200 in September 1973. That is an increase of 3,300 teachers or 15·7 per cent. This figure has to be set against an increase in secondary school pupils of 14·7 per cent. In short, the teacher position has more than matched the effects of RSLA growth, and on a national basis the schools are better supplied than they were two years ago.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn brought out the point about the RSLA. We must keep in mind the point he raised about its introduction; namely, that by and large—I say "by and large" in a broad sense—"roofs over heads" for the RSLA are well on the way to completion, if not already completed. The great pressure for secondary school building is more for improvement than "roofs over heads". I shall deal more with school building in Lanarkshire, if there is time, because that was a subject about which we talked earlier. That is the general national indication.
In Lanarkshire for the last two years the number of pupils has increased by

17·1 per cent. against an increase of 13·5 per cent. in its teaching force. The disparity is more marked in the Roman Catholic schools, where the number of pupils has increased by 17·6 per cent., but staff by only 10·7 per cent. This is the great concern of maldistribution. As I said, the overall Scottish picture in national figures is not unreasonable, but in areas of Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire the situation is more difficult in numbers, subjects and denominations, because the Catholic situation is so serious. All three authorities that I have mentioned have increased their staffs considerably, but they started from a much lower base. That is why the net position in Lanarkshire is so serious. The current pupil-teacher ratio in Lanarkshire is 19·8 to 1, which I accept is the worst in Scotland. This compares with a ratio of 19·2 to 1 in 1971. I should make it clear that the present position is better than it was previously when, as recently as 1969, the pupil-teacher ratio was 20·9 to 1.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn suggested that I might take refuge in the figures. I shall not. But we must have some form of yardstick. That is why it is necessary to explain what "shortage" means. There are at present no objective commonly accepted standards by which to measure the staffing position in any authority, each at the moment having its own standard. My Department published in March a report, "Secondary School Staffing", which sets out standards which could be used by all authorities. We are still consulting interested bodies, but the proposals have generally received a favourable welcome. They offer a means of determining objectively the staffing complement appropriate for this or that type of school, according to its size. These standards are not proposed to be general for some years yet, but applying them today to the Lanarkshire schools, the shortage in the county is 630 teachers, as the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North said. This is a very high figure, and I should emphasise that it is related to standards not yet adopted and not yet due for achievement. Indeed, on Lanarkshire's own standards the current deficiency is about 350.
There will be a marginal improvement in January when, following Christmas,


about 2,000 pupils leave the schools in Lanarkshire. This will help, but there will still be difficulties. At the same time, it is a notable fact that only four secondary schools in the county are having to provide part-time education and the pupils affected are losing not more than three hours per week.
I join in paying tribute to the teachers who are coping so well in these difficult circumstances. I should like to give my share of praise to them. I hope, following what I still have to say, that they will think very carefully before they take any damaging action towards the end of next month.
This morning I was very willing to meet the authority to discuss its problems and ways of reducing them. It was a pure coincidence that it occurred this morning. It was arranged a long time ago, long before this debate was announced. Today I met Mr. Bell, chairman of the education committee, two of his colleagues, the Director of Education and other officials. I should say that just before the meeting I had handed to me a petition about staff shortages signed by a large number of parents of pupils at St. Aidan's School, Wishaw. We had a very constructive talk. Some of the points which were raised were similar to those raised by hon. Members tonight, and I should like to run over them and give my indications as quickly as I can.
First, they raised unanimously the question of salaries. A good point can be made that the higher the salary the more atractive the job. This is an issue which begins on 18th December when the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee begins its discussions and negotiations for the awards to be made next year. It would be inappropriate for me' to comment on what is entirely then-decision at this stage.
I want to deal with the question of designation. This is important. Under the present scheme Lanarkshire has nearly 1,600 posts, 135 of them primary, available to them for designation. I was very glad earlier this year to be able to obtain a few extra posts that had previously been allocated to the east of Scotland and are now doing useful work in the west. Fully a third of all the posts available under the scheme in Scotland are in Lanarkshire.
The authority, like the hon. Member, has pressed for an increase in the allowances. My Department has already started consultations about the review of the scheme, and I believe that it is of absolutely first importance that it be revised to make it attractive in the schools where it is most needed. I hope that before long I shall be able to put proposals to the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee which, as salaries are involved, has to decide the final form. I give a very high number of marks to the designation scheme and I look forward to seeing it continue in the future. In a way, the designation scheme is an under-manning payment in reverse, and I do not think that we should lose sight of that fact.
I should like to put firmly on the record the misconception about the recruitment scheme. It has not been discontinued. I have spoken and written about it continually for the last year. It continues to help graduates and those who hold diplomas in other fields to become teachers. At the moment there are about 400 awards for this year, nearly all in secondary work.
Coming to quotas, which is another important issue, the best way to look at it is to consider how important it is for the staffing scheme which we have put forward to be accepted. I think this will be the most important way of bringing home to authorities what the staffing ratios ought to be so that those authorities which have an excess of teachers will see it before them on paper. This tailor-made scheme which applies to every school will show the authorities where they are in surplus. Where teachers are in surplus, the authorities will not be eligible for rate support grant, and the ratepayers will rightly criticise the council for employing more teachers than it should. Directly, I think, this will have an effect in encouraging teachers to apply for posts in, say, Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, where they are required and where there is room for them.
I am reluctant to think in terms of, so to speak, ordering teachers by a quota system to go to other authorities, since we are at this moment trying to encourage authorities to have the greatest amount of power possible, and to do that would be to take away from them a duty which


they should be able to look after themselves.
The Hamilton College of Education has been the subject of comment. It is a first-class college of education for primary teachers. The case for secondary involvement was pressed strongly this morning by Doctor McEwan, and again tonight by hon. Members. I accept the point that it has had an effect on primary teachers in Lanarkshire, and we shall, because it was argued so cogently this morning, look at that case. I think it only right to say, however, that at present we have sufficient college of education places for secondary teachers in Scotland and it would be wrong to start building more places. We have to accept that the geographical decision, as it were, to put them where they are was taken some years ago, and they are not necessarily ideally placed in the circumstances of Lanarkshire today.

Mr. James Hamilton: I know that time is against the Minister, but I must put this to him. He speaks of sufficient places for secondary teachers to take their final year at the college, but will he not agree that, for physical education, especially in the Catholic schools, many people have the necessary qualifications but there is no room for them?

Mr. Monro: I certainly take that point. I wish to put on record the pleasure I had in hearing from the authority, and hearing how well the county and burghs in Lanarkshire are doing in making houses available. I hope that other authorities will bear this in mind, including, perhaps, the provision of flats for younger teachers, and I noted the point made by the hon. Member for Bothwell in this connection.
This morning, we discussed school building in fair detail, and what I have to add now I shall say as quickly as I can lest I get stopped in mid-stream by the clock. As hon. Members know, we have a small amount of money still available for the main programme. I was

impressed by what Lanarkshire said this morning. We shall be discussing urgently with the authority what additional help we can give, and we hope to announce this in a few weeks' time.
In relation to school building, I should say that Lanarkshire had £12,854,000 in its main programme in 1972–73, and this year, 1974–75, the year we are talking about, the figure is just under £6 million. So it has had a reasonable allocation. I appreciate how much there is to be done in Lanarkshire, particularly in the light of present developments which the county council put to me today, including the growth of population and the large number of new private houses being built in the area.
Overall, I feel that the situation—

Mr. James Hamilton: What about Bellshill?

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman made an important point about Bellshill. The Scottish Development Department will be putting its recommendations to the Secretary of State in the very near future, and we shall then be able to give a decision on the planning application which is now before the local authority. I take on board the importance which the hon. Gentleman has attached not only tonight but frequently in the last year to a Roman Catholic school in Bellshill. There is no question but that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal to represent the interests of his constituents as ably as possible in this matter.
Although there are difficulties in Lanarkshire, I hope that the situation will improve—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.